Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Orders, 4 June and 30 December 2020).
[NB [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

International Trade

The Secretary of State was asked—

Steel Import Tariffs

Marion Fellows: What recent assessment her Department has made of the effect of steel import tariffs on the UK steel industry.

Ranil Jayawardena: First, may I associate myself with the tributes on Monday led by you, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister on the death of His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, and the Humble Address of the House of Commons to Her Majesty?
We are committed to defending British industry and jobs and will not hesitate to take firm action where necessary, which is why we have safeguard measures in place. We know there are concerns that Chinese steel is receiving state subsidies that distort trade, so, working with our allies, we will challenge China and other countries to play by the rules.

Marion Fellows: Motherwell in my constituency was once the heart of steel production in Scotland and the rest of the UK, but consecutive UK Governments have overseen the decline of steel jobs in Scotland from thousands to just over 100. Will the UK Government provide certainty for steelworkers today, support domestic production, protect those remaining jobs and retain the tariffs on steel imports?

Ranil Jayawardena: When the Trade Remedies Authority is set up, it will conclude its investigation, which it would be wrong to pre-empt. We are of course working for every corner of our United Kingdom, backing British businesses and supporting Scottish jobs as much as we are supporting those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—at a time when the Scottish National party wants to cut itself off from its largest market: the British internal market.

Bill Esterson: I am afraid the 5,000 workers at Liberty Steel will not have been reassured by the Minister’s answer. The collapse of Greensill Capital has created serious problems at Liberty Steel and is one of many reasons why the entire British steel industry now urgently needs leadership, stability and support from the Government. Can we get some clarity? Retaining the import tariffs is a political decision. Will the Minister play his part today by guaranteeing that the Government will retain the vital safeguard tariffs that Britain currently has in place against cheap steel imports for the full financial year ahead—no ifs, no buts and no maybes?

Ranil Jayawardena: I do love the authenticity with which the hon. Gentleman asked his question; of course, if it were a political decision, he would be calling for it to be independent. It is an independent decision. The Trade Remedies Authority has teeth and will act accordingly. Just like this Government, our Trade Remedies Authority is going to defend the British national industry, back British jobs and support people throughout our United Kingdom.

UK Exports to the US: Tariffs

Alistair Carmichael: What recent discussions she has had with her US counterpart on not re-imposing tariffs on UK exports to the US.

Elizabeth Truss: I am delighted that the United States responded to our de-escalation of retaliatory tariffs in January and has removed the 25% tariff on Scotch whisky and other products. This is fantastic news for the 50,000 people whose jobs rely on the industry. I am working with Ambassador Tai to get a long-term resolution to the Airbus-Boeing dispute.

Alistair Carmichael: The Scotch whisky industry is of economic importance to a large number of the most economically fragile communities in the highlands and islands, so I genuinely wish the Secretary of State very well in her endeavours to get the removal of tariffs made permanent. Is the situation that the Prime Minister has created in Northern Ireland helping or hindering the engagement with the Biden Administration?

Elizabeth Truss: We are extremely committed to the Good Friday agreement and have had frequent discussions with the Biden Administration. I am having very positive discussions with my counterpart Katherine Tai about resolving the Airbus-Boeing dispute—which has been going on for 16 years—to the benefit of the Scotch whisky industry, other industries throughout the UK and industries such as aerospace, in which we need Airbus to be able to compete.

Angus MacNeil: Madainn mhath, Mr Speaker.
The digital-service-tax threats from the USA show that the Biden Administration value their special relationship with big tech more than the one with the UK. The threat to the tax sovereignty of the UK and a number of other countries indicates that there is not really a relationship of equals. Is not the prospect of a  trade deal with the USA pretty dead? In any case, the 0.2% of GDP that such a deal was going to recover was only a fraction of the damage done by Brexit. Has the Secretary of State accepted that fact yet?

Elizabeth Truss: We are urging the United States to desist from any more tit-for-tat tariffs disputes, including in respect of a digital services tax. We think that the best way to resolve the issue is through the process that the Chancellor is leading at the OECD. We are in further discussions with the United States not just to end the Airbus tariff dispute but to work with the United States at the G7 to challenge unfair practices in the global trading system by countries such as China.

UK Steel Producers: Level Trading Field

Stephen Kinnock: What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help ensure a level trading field for UK steel producers while the EU and US maintain import controls on steel goods.

Margaret Ferrier: What steps her Department is taking to help ensure a level trading field for UK steel producers while the EU and US maintain import controls on steel goods.

Ranil Jayawardena: The Government back the British steel industry, as we have heard already this morning, and the unjustified US tariffs on steel, aluminium and derivatives imports from Britain are completely unfair and wholly unnecessary. Our rebalancing measures in response to the US section 232 on additional tariffs show that we will defend the British national interest and the rules-based system.

Stephen Kinnock: Our steelworkers make the best steel that money can buy but, thanks to the indifference of successive Conservative Governments since 2010, they are constantly being made to compete with one hand tied behind their back. They are already dealing with the highest industrial energy prices in Europe and a Government procurement policy that fails the patriotism test, and now they face the possibility that, in June, steel safeguards that guard against import surges will be removed. Does the Minister agree that, if the Government were to remove those safeguards, it would add insult to injury and again undermine the ability of our steel industry to compete on a level playing field?

Ranil Jayawardena: As the hon. Member knows, the British steel industry has benefited from investment of more than £500 million in recent years to help with the costs of energy, and we have announced a £250 million fund to support the decarbonisation of the industry. So this Government are dedicated to supporting the future of the steel industry and we will continue that work.

Margaret Ferrier: Removing these measures would lead to the UK being one of the only steel markets without any protective measures for its steel industries. Does the Minister not agree that, while global overcapacity stands at over 500 million tonnes, it would be unwise to become a rare exposed market for steel when larger markets are still protected?

Ranil Jayawardena: Mr Speaker, there are only so many times that I can say the same thing in a different way, but we have transitioned 19 of the EU’s measures and we have adopted systems in Britain for trade remedies based on international best practice to ensure that there is independence in this area. I say to the hon. Lady, as I have said already to her Scottish nationalist colleague, that the biggest market for Scotland is of course the British internal market, from which she is determined to tear Scotland.

Unfair Trading Practices

Duncan Baker: What steps she is taking to tackle the use of (a) trade-distorting subsidies and (b) other unfair trading practices.

Elizabeth Truss: It is completely wrong that other countries are applying unfair practices to undermine fantastic British products. I am working with the new director of the World Trade Organisation, Dr Ngozi, to ensure that other countries play by the global rules of free trade.

Duncan Baker: The wool trade started in Norfolk in medieval times, many, many years ago, and we have always been an outward-looking area to the world, but for trade to be free, it must also be fair. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what steps she is taking to protect vital industries to ensure that they are not undercut by those unscrupulous countries that engage in unfair trading practices?

Elizabeth Truss: We are establishing the new Trade Remedies Authority—which, of course, the Opposition voted against—in the Trade Bill, which will ensure that all countries follow the WTO rules. It will look at the evidence and be unafraid to recommend countervailing duties on exports when other countries do not play by the rules, so Chinese products, such as steel and ceramics, that receive unfair state subsidies that will distort trade and damage British business will be tackled.

Jobs in Yorkshire

Jason McCartney: What recent estimate she has made of the number of jobs in Yorkshire that are delivered by international trade.

Graham Stuart: New research published alongside the Board of Trade paper “Global Britain, local jobs” estimates that 418,000 jobs were supported by exports in 2016 in Yorkshire and Humber. [Interruption.] Of course, the shadow Secretary of State laughs at the mention of jobs. It is notable how, in session after session, one issue that the she does not focus on is jobs and the livelihoods on which people depend. Of those jobs—I thank her for stopping her chuntering from a sedentary position. Of those jobs—[Interruption.] Oh, she has not stopped. Of those jobs, 234,000 were supported directly by exporting businesses, while a further 184,000 form part of the UK supply chain of exporting businesses.

Jason McCartney: I recently hosted an online Department for International Trade roundtable with local businesses, giving advice and support on exporting. Will the Minister please thank his team for helping to host that session? Will he make sure that the Department  continues to invest in regional exporting advisers to support businesses across Colne Valley and Yorkshire so that we can continue to take full advantage of the new, exciting opportunities that international trade is bringing?

Graham Stuart: I thank my hon. Friend: is it not fantastic and uplifting to have someone who is genuinely dedicated to supporting and promoting the jobs upon which so many families depend? I am delighted that he has joined DIT’s parliamentary export programme, as have colleagues from right across this House, supporting and encouraging businesses to grow internationally, including through unlocking the benefits of the free trade agreements. As he rightly highlights, DIT has 28 international trade advisers dedicated to the Yorkshire region who help small and medium-sized enterprises to fulfil their exporting potential and connect them to international business opportunities.

Trade and Investment in Wales

Robin Millar: What recent assessment she has made of the economic effect of international trade on Wales.

Elizabeth Truss: Last month, I announced our new trade and investment hub in Wales, which will support almost 200,000 exporters and channel investment into Wales. It will play a crucial role in the export-led, jobs-led recovery for Wales.

Robin Millar: The UK Government’s plan for a trade and investment hub in Wales is welcome support for business here in Wales. It will support exporters and help to restore inward investment in Wales to the levels we enjoyed in the past. What benefits has the Secretary of State identified that the hub will bring to exporters here in Aberconwy and across north Wales?

Elizabeth Truss: The trade and investment hub will provide support to business across Wales. There are already 2,000 people in Aberconwy working in export-intensive industries. The trade hub will provide support, including for Welsh lamb exports, which have resumed after more than 20 years to countries such as Japan.

Gareth Thomas: The Government’s “Global Britain, local jobs” analysis does not take into account Brexit or covid, it ignores Welsh farming and Welsh steel production, and it appears to think that there are still 1,500 people employed in car production in Bridgend, which sadly there are not. Does the Secretary of State therefore think that this outdated, incomplete analysis is a reliable foundation on which to base her trade policy for Wales?

Elizabeth Truss: The analysis that we produced as part of “Global Britain, local jobs” is the first time that we have produced data at a constituency level for export industries, and it always takes time for statistics to be processed. The new Trade Bill has enabled us to get access to more up-to-date data that we will of course continue to update our strategy with. I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the new trade hub that we are establishing in Cardiff, which will bring more investment to Wales—so let us hear from him.

Gareth Thomas: I think what the Secretary of State meant to say was that there is room for improvement, and that is certainly true. The stark reality is that Wales is getting a raw deal from the Trade Department. According to her own figures, the Department delivered 638 new inward investment projects for London but just 62 for Wales—a lower number of new investment projects than in any region in England, and for three years in a row. How can she justify those figures?

Elizabeth Truss: We are establishing a trade and investment hub in Cardiff this year that will employ up to 100 people precisely to bring more investment into Wales, more jobs into Wales, and more export opportunities into Wales.

Arms Exports: International Humanitarian Law

Kim Johnson: What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that arms exported from the UK are not deployed in contravention of international humanitarian law.

Ranil Jayawardena: All arms exports require an export licence. I can assure the House that we take our export control responsibilities very seriously. We rigorously assess every application on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, taking advice from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence. We will not issue an export licence where to do so would be inconsistent with the consolidated criteria, including where there is a clear risk that the items might be used for a serious violation of international humanitarian law.

Kim Johnson: The Yemeni community in Liverpool would like to know how the Minister can possibly justify the decision of his Department to increase its sales of bombs and missiles for use in Yemen to new record highs, while his friends at the Foreign Office are simultaneously cutting the amount of humanitarian aid going to starving Yemeni children. Does he accept that this is not just wrong, but downright immoral?

Ranil Jayawardena: Not only are Her Majesty’s Government one of the biggest donors of aid around the world, including to Yemen, but as was set out in the Secretary of State’s written statement, we have devised a clear and revised methodology to make sure we will only license such products if they are consistent with the consolidated criteria.

Trade Policies: Farmers

Craig Williams: What recent assessment she has made of the potential effect of her Department’s trade policies on UK farmers.

Elizabeth Truss: We want to sell more British food around the world and help farmers make the most of our trade deals with 66 nations, plus the EU. We launched the Open Doors campaign, which will help our farmers to export to the world’s fastest growing markets.

Craig Williams: It is well documented that the food produced by our farmers is world class and demand around the world is increasing. Can my right hon. Friend build on the success of her FTAs, especially with Japan, in opening up markets for Welsh lamb and beef, including the United States? There was success with the United States on beef, and hopefully there will be on lamb. Can she update us in particular on the United States and Japan?

Elizabeth Truss: Welsh farmers export £144 million of lamb and beef around the world, and the recent opening of the US market to beef and the Japanese market to lamb will boost the figures further. Last month, I visited Kepak, which is already shipping beef to the US from farms across Wales, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Emily Thornberry: I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to join me in thanking Tim Smith and all the members of the Trade and Agriculture Commission for their final report published last month. Can I start by asking her when the Government intend to publish the core set of standards that the commission has called for, setting out the UK’s minimum requirements for tariff reductions when it comes to food safety, the environment and animal welfare?

Elizabeth Truss: I completely agree with the right hon. Lady that Tim Smith and the team produced a fantastic report laying out the future for British agricultural trade, and I am also delighted that she welcomes the recommendations to promote the liberalisation of trade to influence innovation and productivity, and price and choice for consumers. We will be responding to the report in due course.

Emily Thornberry: I thank the Secretary of State for the answer, but it is vital that when this House comes to examine the upcoming trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand, we are able to judge them against that core set of standards. Can I ask her to make it clear today that there will be no proposed reduction in tariffs as a result of those two agreements for any agricultural products that do not meet Britain’s core standards?

Elizabeth Truss: Part of the Trade Bill was the establishment of the statutory Trade and Agriculture Commission. For every free trade agreement, it will produce a report on precisely the issues that the right hon. Lady outlines. I am very pleased that our partners in Australia and New Zealand are two countries with very high standards in animal welfare.

Trade Sanctions on Exports from Xinjiang

Yasmin Qureshi: What recent discussions she has had with her US counterpart on trade sanctions on exports from Xinjiang.

Ranil Jayawardena: The Secretary of State spoke with the US trade representative, Katherine Tai, on 22 March. They discussed a number of issues, including how the United Kingdom and the United States will collaborate to address shared concerns on  serious matters such as forced labour. The Secretary of State also discussed the issue of forced labour with Ambassador Tai and her G7 counterparts during the G7 Trade Ministers meeting that she chaired on 31 March.

Yasmin Qureshi: The Magnitsky-style sanctions against China are only the first step. While we welcome them, trade relations cannot be left out. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that UK consumers are not buying goods made with forced labour, and will the UK follow the US in banning imports of cotton from China’s Xinjiang region?

Ranil Jayawardena: We are adopting a targeted approach to this issue, to make sure that we address the violations of rights and responsibilities. We have designated individuals and entities that have been involved in such violations. This is a smart tool, carefully targeted to achieve its goals, while minimising potentially negative wider impacts. It is not designed with a view to imposing sanctions on sectors within countries, for example.

UK and Sweden: Trade and Business Relationships

Andrew Bowie: What steps her Department is taking to improve trade and business relationships between the UK and Sweden.

Greg Hands: Sweden is a close ally of the UK on trade policy and a close partner in our day-to-day trading relationship. I was the first UK Minister to visit Sweden after the EU referendum, and through our excellent DIT team in Stockholm, we work hard to promote trade and investment between the UK and Sweden.

Andrew Bowie: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. According to a recent report by the Swedish chamber of commerce for the UK, almost 40% of Swedish businesses are optimistic about business growth in the UK and 70% continue to see the UK as an important step in international expansion. Does he agree that developing links with this greatest Scandinavian country, which shares our values and our growing economy, would be good for the UK, good for jobs and good for developing relations with our partners in the European Union?

Greg Hands: I commend my hon. Friend for his work as the chairman of the British-Swedish all-party parliamentary group and his mention of the excellent Swedish chamber of commerce for the UK, which was on one of my recent webinars. In my recent call with Swedish Trade Minister Anna Hallberg, we agreed to co-host a bilateral trade and business forum later this year. We have excellent trade co-operation with Sweden in sectors such as technology, financial services, defence and clean energy, so I very much share my hon. Friend’s optimism.

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

Clive Efford: What recent assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the UK joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.

Elizabeth Truss: Joining the CPTPP is a massive opportunity for UK businesses, in particular those in areas such as financial services and digital, where the rules are world-leading. It will also cut tariffs for businesses in vital industries such as cars and whisky and help to drive our exports-led, jobs-led recovery from covid.

Clive Efford: The very first of the 238 questions put to the Secretary of State in a letter from my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on accession to the CPTPP asked her whether the UK will have the right to negotiate exemptions from those provisions of the agreement to which we do not wish to accede and amendments to those provisions to which we wish to make improvements, or whether it is her intention to join the CPTPP accepting all its current provisions in full. What is the Secretary of State’s answer?

Elizabeth Truss: The CPTPP is a very high-standards agreement, and the rules will have huge benefits for the UK. The reality is that UK products such as beef and lamb have been locked out of overseas markets for unfair reasons, so it is in our interests to sign up to a high-standards, good-rules agreement.

Emily Thornberry: As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) said, there are at least 238 questions that the Secretary of State has to address on the subject of this agreement, and I look forward to receiving her answers soon, but today I want to ask her one simple one: can she guarantee that this Parliament will have as much time to scrutinise the proposed terms of accession to CPTPP before a vote on whether or not to approve them as the Australia, Canada and New Zealand Parliaments had before their respective votes?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank the right hon. Lady for her question—she clearly comes from a profession where she was paid by the number of questions she asked. I will be delighted to answer all those questions and more when we publish the public bundle, which will include the scoping assessment and our negotiation objectives. We will publish that at the time of launching our negotiations, and we will also have full parliamentary scrutiny, including by the statutory Trade and Agriculture Commission, in line with parliamentary systems across the world.

UK Exports: Germany, Italy and Ireland

Alyn Smith: What recent estimate her Department has made of the value of UK exports to (a) Germany, (b) Italy and (c) Ireland in 2021.

Greg Hands: The UK greatly values its trade with each of Germany, Italy and Ireland. All trade data is currently volatile, especially due to the pandemic, but data released earlier this week showed a monthly upwards bounce in UK goods exports to the EU to £11.6 billion in February from £7.9 billion in January, including increases to all three countries referred to in the question.

Alyn Smith: I appreciate that those on the Government Benches prefer breathless rhetoric to harsh reality, but the statistics to which the Minister refers are really quite clear for rural Scotland. Its meat exports remain down 52%, fish and shellfish are down 54%, dairy and eggs down 39%, beverages down 34%, cereals down 40%, and fruit and veg down 54%. Would the Minister like to apologise to the tens of thousands of people across rural Scotland who are in daily dread and fear of what their economic future holds?

Greg Hands: I thank the hon. Member for that follow-up question, and I wonder if, to coin a phrase, he has perhaps taken his eye off the ball, because actually there was a bounce back in trade in February. I will give him an independent view from the Office for National Statistics, which on the trade data says:
“Exports of food and live animals to the EU increased…in February 2021, after being significantly impacted in January… Exports of fish and shellfish to the EU also saw an uptick in February 2021 as exporters adjust to new regulations following the end of the transition period. The disruptions to food exports in January 2021 appear to have largely been overcome and may have only had short-term impacts on trade.”
That is from the Office for National Statistics, which he may seek to consult.

Drew Hendry: I am delighted the Minister has quoted the ONS, because figures out this week show economic output remaining nearly 8% below the pre-pandemic peak and exports to Germany, Italy and Ireland down by as much as 50% to 75%. These are not teething problems; they are the bite of long Brexit. Does the Minister agree with Matt Griffith from the British Chambers of Commerce that his members are experiencing a
“permanent deterioration in their competitive position due to higher admin, paperwork and shipping costs”?

Greg Hands: It is good to have an argument about statistics, but actually the UK exports to the EU in February of £11.6 billion were only just below the monthly average for the whole of 2020, which was obviously very impacted by the pandemic, of £12 billion. I would caution against using statistics in this way—we need to see the bigger picture—but I refer the hon. Member back to what the ONS said. On the help we are providing for exporters, we have various Government helplines, the Brexit business taskforce, Brexit SME support and various measures in place specifically to support the agricultural sector and the Scottish seafood sector.

Drew Hendry: Let us come away from statistics and back to what is happening. JP Morgan boss Jamie Dimon wrote to staff this month warning them that it will move all its EU-faced business out of London and into Europe. He says:
“Brexit was accomplished, but many issues still need to be negotiated. And in those negotiations, Europe has had, and will continue to have, the upper hand.”
The financial services sector is a huge employer in Scotland, and it is also facing this Westminster-inflicted disaster. Can the Minister now see why people in Scotland want to have their choice and their say over their own future?

Greg Hands: The hon. Member will know that there is of course a financial services memorandum of understanding between the UK and the EU, and we are acutely aware of the importance of the financial services sector, not least to my constituency as well. Many, I have to say, were surprised when the SNP voted for no deal on 30 December, especially after Nicola Sturgeon called it “unthinkable”. However, I have to say that I was not as surprised, because over the years I have seen the SNP vote against every single UK or EU trade deal, so the idea that it was going to vote in favour of a trade deal between the two of them was, frankly, highly unlikely. The SNP is anti-business, anti-jobs and against Scotland’s best interests.

Trading Relationship with Tunisia

Damien Moore: What recent assessment she has made of the potential merits of strengthening the UK’s trading relationship with Tunisia.

Ranil Jayawardena: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Tunisia and Libya. There is great merit in strengthening the trading relationship with Tunisia. Our trade deal entered into force at the beginning of this year and it provides a platform to deepen trade and investment. As he knows, we are already supporting businesses such as Unilever, AstraZeneca and Vodafone, who already operate in Tunisia, and we look forward to backing British businesses to do even more.

Damien Moore: Tunisia is a leading exporter of olive oil and wants to export more to the UK, but minimum quota requirements based on the last two years are making this difficult. Will my hon. Friend look into this so that trade is made easy with Tunisia, which is eager to build an even stronger trading partnership with the UK?

Ranil Jayawardena: I am aware of this matter and am keen to make sure that businesses can make the most of our transition to trade agreements, so I will look into it. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and my Tunisian counterpart to open up and promote opportunities for British and Tunisian businesses; more trade means more jobs.

Jobs in Teesside

Jacob Young: What recent estimate she has made of the number of jobs in Teesside that are delivered by international trade.

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend will be delighted that Teesside will benefit from one of eight new freeports, unlocking billions of pounds of private sector investment, and it will also help British businesses not just in his constituency but across the whole of the UK, including the 300,000 export-linked jobs in the north-east.

Jacob Young: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer and for her support for Teesside exporters. From raw chemicals to plastics and steel, Teesside manufacturers  rely on global trade, so I am grateful to her Department for the work it has done, alongside Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen, to bring more jobs, including in her Department, to the Tees valley. Can she outline when we might start to see these DIT jobs coming to Teesside, and what is her message to the people of the Tees valley ahead of the important elections next month?

Elizabeth Truss: My message is that Ben Houchen is doing a fantastic job, as is my hon. Friend. I am delighted that we are establishing a new trade hub in Darlington, which is only half an hour’s drive from my hon. Friend’s constituency. There are over 4,000 jobs in export-related industries in Redcar, including in the chemicals industry, and we will be doing even more to support them with the new Darlington trade hub.

Free Trade Agreements: Professional Business Services

James Sunderland: What steps she is taking to promote professional business services in free trade agreements.

Felicity Buchan: What steps she is taking to promote professional business services in free trade agreements.

Greg Hands: The UK is a world leader in professional business services and the second biggest exporter of PBS globally, with a trade surplus of £33 billion in 2018. To support this important and diverse sector, we are seeking ambitious FTA commitments in cross-cutting areas like mobility and digital, as well as tackling specific behind-the-border regulatory barriers such as recognition and professional qualifications.

James Sunderland: The Minister will forgive me for being a bit concerned about ongoing red tape in post-Brexit trade with the European Union. This is affecting businesses in Bracknell and beyond. Will he please outline what his Department is doing to support the Cabinet Office in resolving this?

Greg Hands: DIT has very active participation in the current helplines for businesses facing issues in exporting to the EU. We participate, of course, in the Brexit business taskforce, we provide a DIT internationalisation fund for those looking to export, and we have 300 international trade advisers across the country and at posts right across the European Union. This is a whole-of-Government effort, and, as I said earlier, the data are starting to show encouraging signs of a recovery in our trade.

Felicity Buchan: Many of my Kensington constituents work in professional services, whether financial services, law, consulting or accountancy. These industries account for a huge amount of gross value added to our economy. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the professional services sector will be at the forefront of our minds in negotiating future trade deals?

Greg Hands: My hon. Friend and neighbour puts it extremely well. Professional business services are vital for her constituency, for mine and for the whole country. Around 79% of gross value added and 80% of employment  in this country is in services. As she knows, we secured special provisions for legal services in the EU agreement. I meet regularly with bodies such as TheCityUK, the City of London Corporation, UK Finance, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Law Society, the Bar Council and others to ensure that professional business services are right at the heart of the UK’s trade agenda.

Trade Relationship with the Middle East

Robert Halfon: What steps she is taking to strengthen the UK’s trade relationship with the middle east.

Ranil Jayawardena: Britain has strong bilateral trading relationships with our friends in the middle east and a clear ambition to deepen them. As my right hon. Friend knows, we are undertaking a joint trade and investment review with the Gulf Co-operation Council, with which total trade stood at over £33 billion in the year to September 2020. The Government have also signed trade agreements with Jordan and Lebanon, and just last month we entered into an agreement with the sovereign wealth fund of Abu Dhabi to provide £1 billion of investment into British life sciences.

Robert Halfon: Today is Yom Ha’atzmaut—Israeli independence day—so I hope that my hon. Friend will wish Israel happy independence day. The normalisation of ties between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain last year was a hugely positive step not only for regional peace but for commerce, tourism and cultural exchanges. Does my hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom is well placed to support our ally Israel in developing ties in the region, and will he explore the opportunities that these new trade relationships could bring to our country?

Ranil Jayawardena: Indeed I do join my right hon. Friend in wishing all Israelis a happy independence day. He is right to recognise the strong relationships that we have with the state of Israel. We welcome the normalisation of relations, which creates many opportunities for increased trade, tourism and cultural links as well. Britain is well placed to support Israel in this endeavour. Total trade between us was £4.9 billion in the year to September 2020, up from the previous year. We are building a framework for a new bilateral science partnership. In addition, the tech hub based in the British embassy in Tel Aviv continues to partner Israeli expertise with British companies, delivering significant benefits to the British economy.

Jobs in the North-west

Mark Logan: What recent estimate she has made of the number of jobs in the north-west that are delivered by international trade.

Graham Stuart: Around 630,000 jobs in the north-west were supported by exports in 2016, and export—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Graham Stuart: Export activity helped support a further 472,000 jobs in the region through the consumption spending of export workers in the wider economy. In total, more than 1.1 million jobs—not a laughing matter, Mr Speaker—in the region are linked to exports in some way.

Mark Logan: Napoleon said that Britain was a nation of shopkeepers; I want to say that Bolton is a town of exporters. I recently hosted the parliamentary export programme in Bolton North East, seeking to help Bolton businesses such as Ajax Equipment and Velden Engineering to take advantage of new trading relations. Across Greater Manchester, foreign direct investment and foreign capital investment are worth £37 billion to the local economy. What actions is the Minister taking to put Bolton North East at the forefront of the global stage when it comes to research and development?

Graham Stuart: It is as much my hon. Friend as me who is putting Bolton North East at the forefront. He has joined colleagues as a member of the parliamentary export programme, and I congratulate him on hosting a recent event. He will have seen that we are working hard to help Bolton North East companies take advantage of new global opportunities and promoting a strong north-west R&D offer to international investors through the high potential opportunities programme in frontier sectors such as molecular diagnostics, lightweighting and sustainable packaging.

Future Trade Deals: Human Rights Clauses

Patricia Gibson: What recent discussions she has had with UK trade partners on inserting clauses on human rights into future trade deals.

Virendra Sharma: What recent discussions she has had with UK trade partners on inserting clauses on human rights into future trade deals.

Greg Hands: The UK has long supported the promotion of our values globally. We are clear that more trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights. Although our approach to agreements will vary between partners, our strong economic relationships allow us to have open discussions on a range of issues, including human rights and responsibilities.

Patricia Gibson: In a leaked recording last month, the Foreign Secretary said he wants to do trade deals with countries that violate international standards on human rights, as not doing so would mean missing out on profit. Will the record now be set straight? Does the Minister recognise the remarks made by the Foreign Secretary as Government policy and is this the view shared by the Department for International Trade?

Greg Hands: I think the hon. Lady has misquoted the Foreign Secretary in her account of what he said, but let me be absolutely clear that we will continue to encourage  all states to uphold international human rights obligations. The UK has long supported the promotion of our values globally and remains absolutely committed to its international obligations. We are currently negotiating with Australia, New Zealand and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. They will all be important partners and they are all places that the UK will be engaging with when it comes to questions of maintenance and international support for global human rights.

Virendra Sharma: I will make the Minister’s life a bit easier when answering the question. Last month, the Foreign Secretary explained that there were some countries whose behaviour on human rights put them “beyond the pale” when it comes to trade agreements, but that otherwise we should be open to deals with anyone. Can the Minister of State save us some time by listing those countries whose behaviour the Government regard as beyond the pale and those that they regard as acceptable?

Greg Hands: Again, I will have to go back and see exactly what the Foreign Secretary said, but I think the hon. Gentleman’s interpretation of what he said is not quite right. Let us be absolutely clear. I ask him to have a look at the roll-over trade agreements we have already done with 66 countries and see if he can identify any diminution of human rights in the agreements we have already done.

Topical Questions

Jason McCartney: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Elizabeth Truss: On 4 March, we struck a historic deal with the US Administration, heralding the end of the 16-year Airbus-Boeing dispute. The deal removes the 25% tariffs on some UK exports, such as Scotch whisky, cashmere and machinery. It paves the way for an even deeper trading relationship with one of our closest friends and allies. I continue to work with the US trade representative on the deal and on our broader trading relationship.

Jason McCartney: As co-chair of the all-party group for Fairtrade, may I please ask the Secretary of State what steps her Department is taking to make sure that our trade policies help and support Fairtrade farmers and growers across the world?

Elizabeth Truss: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work on the all-party group. The UK is a long-standing supporter and champion of Fairtrade. We are opening up markets with developing countries such as Kenya and Ghana. We will shortly be launching our new general scheme of preferences, which will give more access to developing countries, helping them to grow through trade.

Tan Dhesi: The New Zealand Government announced last month their policy towards countries such as the UK seeking to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership. They said:
“New members…will need to comply with the existing…agreement. The text of the Agreement will not change. Current rules and obligations…will not change.”
Is the Secretary of State concerned that that sounds very much like we will be rule-takers in the CPTPP, rather than rule-makers?

Elizabeth Truss: The UK is a country that follows the rules. We have very high standards in areas like the environment, animal welfare, food standards and intellectual property. It is in our interests to be in an agreement with high standards, so that we can ask the same of other countries and get access to their markets. That is the point of signing trade agreements.

Antony Higginbotham: As we follow the covid-19 road map and move from response to recovery, it is vital that we offer our small and medium-sized businesses the tools and support that they need to find new markets, grow their exports and spur on our economic growth. Will the Minister set out what steps the Department is taking to make sure that our SMEs are supported on the world stage?

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is quite right to highlight the importance of supporting SMEs precisely to get into that international business space. That is why we are developing a new export strategy. We have the developing Export Academy,  with a range of toolkits and information to support small businesses. We have the internationalisation fund: £38 million of grants to help businesses to overcome any barriers to international trade. Last but not least, we have UK Export Finance, our award-winning credit agency, which has increasing numbers of staff not only across this United Kingdom, but across the world to make sure that SMEs, wherever they go, can be financed and supported to realise those opportunities, which are many.

Geraint Davies: Sixty per cent. of Wales’s exports have been to the EU and steel is of great importance. Given that the Government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts showed that the Brexit deal would lead to a 4% reduction in our GDP, and given that they are removing the safeguards on steel in June, does the Secretary of State accept that the overall amount and value of exports from Wales in the next five years will be less than it was in the previous five years due to the Government’s policies?

Elizabeth Truss: First, we are not removing the safeguards in June. When we were part of the EU, decisions about safeguards were made on an independent basis. Nobody on the Opposition side of the House complained about that then, but they seem to object to independent decisions being made when we are a sovereign nation, which I find utterly bizarre. And I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s pessimistic prognosis of the future of Welsh exports. We have massive opportunities for more beef exports, more lamb exports, more car exports and more aerospace exports, and that is what we are going to do through our new trade and investment hub in Cardiff. It is going to be driving those opportunities and I urge him to get behind it.

Tom Hunt: In Ipswich, we are fortunate to have an incredibly engaged local Indian community, many of whom run businesses sourcing  goods coming from India. Also down the road, let us not forget, is Felixstowe, which takes in most of the goods that come in from India and then go around the rest of the country. Do the Government have any plans to closely engage with local communities, such as the Indian community in Ipswich, and possibly introduce cultural exchanges to bridge any cultural barriers there may be and therefore increase and boost trade between our country and our close friends, India?

Elizabeth Truss: I would be delighted to engage with the local Indian community in Ipswich and across the country, because I think we have huge opportunities to expand our trade with India. It is currently £24 billion, but it could be so much more. We are currently working on an enhanced trade partnership with the Indian Government and I look forward to engaging with my hon. Friend and the people of Ipswich to make it happen.

Daniel Zeichner: May I ask the Secretary of State if she understands the frustration of the Cheshire Cheese Company, whose co-founder, I understand, spoke to officials in her Department before Easter about the problems that they are facing exporting to the EU? Extraordinarily, instead of being given advice on how to fix the problem, they were advised to look for other emerging markets. Given the Secretary of State’s infamous passion for cheese, will she tell us whether her departmental officials could not have done better?

Elizabeth Truss: I am very happy to help the cheese company export not just to the EU, but around the world.

Martin Vickers: Since the announcement that Immingham and the Humber ports have been designated as a freeport and that their application scored high in every category, businesses from around my constituency have been contacting me to welcome the announcement. They see it as part of the Government’s global Britain policies. What plans does the Department have to ensure that they can benefit from the freeport and explore new markets?

Graham Stuart: Like my hon. Friend, I am celebrating the freeport, which will make a positive difference and from which businesses will be able to export all around the world. Our export academy, the new export strategy and other elements are all there to help them to make the most of it, as well as, of course, probably the most ambitious trade policy ever conducted by a major economy in history, which we are successfully prosecuting. If I may, Mr Speaker, I would also like to thank my hon. Friend for briefing me ahead of my visit to Serbia last week, prosecuting the case for British businesses, in his role as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to the western Balkans.

Kate Osamor: It is now almost six weeks since the Government signed  a trade agreement between the UK and Cameroon, which many of us want to read, to see how it will address the shocking human rights abuses taking place in that country. Will the Secretary of State explain why the agreement has not yet been laid before Parliament, and will she guarantee a debate when it is?

Ranil Jayawardena: The text, and a parliamentary report and explanatory memorandum, will of course come before Parliament in due course. We wish to utilise the agreement to strengthen the trade ties between our two countries. I look forward to the Labour party supporting our agenda to create more jobs in every part of this country and in Cameroon.

Imran Ahmad Khan: I have been delighted to work with the excellent team at the Department of International Trade in setting up the parliamentary export programme in Wakefield, which several Wakefield businesses have joined. The programme has allowed them to learn the benefits of exporting under the free trade agreements that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her excellent, dynamic team have signed thus far. With more free trade agreements to be ratified, including with blocs such as the CPTPP, can my right hon. Friend outline to the House what benefits these new agreements will bring to businesses in Wakefield and across West Yorkshire?

Greg Hands: I thank my hon. Friend for promoting the trade agenda so effectively in Wakefield. He is quite right that free trade agreements have a crucial role to play in enabling the UK to seize international opportunities to support that economic vision. Joining CPTPP now will benefit businesses in a number of ways, including through ambitious rules supporting digital trade and reduced tariffs on UK exports, enabling us to build back better and building more opportunities for businesses, supporting jobs in constituencies such as Wakefield.

Chris Law: In its annual report on human rights around the world, Amnesty International says that the UK Government’s increasingly hostile attitude towards upholding and preserving human rights legislation raises “serious concerns”. Indeed, the report specifically cited the resumption of the sale of new licences for military exports to Saudi Arabia. Does the Minister agree with Amnesty International’s conclusion that this shameful move has contributed to the UK’s
“headlong rush into abandoning...human rights”?

Ranil Jayawardena: Not at all. We have always been clear that more trade need not come at the expense of our values, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear earlier today. We have one of the most robust systems of arms export controls in the world and have always been clear that we will only permit exports on a case-by-case basis where the consolidated criteria are upheld.

Robert Halfon: Will my right hon. Friend set out what progress her Department is making on meeting the 2.3% public sector apprenticeship target and when it will meet it, and also say what she is doing to encourage all the businesses that she speaks to about international trade to employ apprentices?

Greg Hands: I commend my right hon. Friend for his work to promote apprenticeships, first in the Government and then as Chair of the Education Committee. It is too   early to have final figures for 2021, but we are confident of achieving the legislative target set, building on our previous performance. According to Cabinet Office statistics, DIT achieved 3.5% of its total workforce in England as apprenticeship starts in 2019-20, up from 1.1% the year before, easily clearing the target of 2.3%.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Sitting suspended.

University Students: Compensation for Lost Teaching and Rent

Daisy Cooper: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if he will make a statement on the return date given to university students and his Department’s plans to provide financial compensation to university students for lost teaching and rent during the coronavirus pandemic.

Michelle Donelan: This Government recognise just how difficult the past year has been for students. Since the arrival of new and highly transmissible variants, we have had to adopt a cautious approach, in line with the wider restrictions. In January, we enabled only students on critical key worker courses to return, and from 8 March we allowed practical and creative students to resume face-to-face teaching. This week, we have announced that the final tranche of students will be able to return on 17 May, subject to step 3 of the road map. This decision was made, as promised, following a review during the Easter holidays. I understand the frustrations of students and parents; the pandemic has disproportionately impacted our young. That is one of the key reasons why we have worked with universities to ensure that education carried on throughout and that students can graduate on time.
Many things are indeed opening up in step 2, but most are outside and social mixing remains focused outside, and they do not involve the formation of new households. We know that, inside, the risk of transmission increases with the number of people mixing and the length of time they are together, which is why we are being cautious until stage 3.
The Office for National Statistics estimates that 23% of students are yet to return to their termtime accommodation, which still leaves up to 500,000 students yet to travel. Throughout the pandemic, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has warned of the risk posed by the mass movement of students, especially given that they form new households.
At the heart of our decision was public health, but also student wellbeing. The last thing any of us wants is for students to have to repeatedly self-isolate, as some did last autumn. That would not only have been damaging to their mental health and wellbeing, but would have risked the ability to graduate of some students studying creative and practical subjects.
This decision was taken not in isolation, but as part of the Government’s overall road map to reopening. Every relaxation—even those with a low impact and low risk—will have an impact, so we have to judge the impact of these relaxations cumulatively to ensure that the road map is irreversible.
The Government do recognise the financial pressures the pandemic has placed on students in the financial sense, including accommodation costs. That is why, this week, we have announced an additional £15 million, on top of the £70 million since last December and the £256 million of taxpayer funding that we enabled universities to access for hardship.
It is important to clarify that the exemptions still apply to students who need to return to their term-time accommodation for mental health reasons or because  of a lack of study space. We have asked universities to make their facilities available to all students who are back, to support their mental health and wellbeing.
I end by assuring the House that I will continue to work closely with universities so that, together, we can support students, and especially those who will graduate this year.

Daisy Cooper: About 36 hours ago, around 1 million students who have still not returned to university since Christmas were told that they should not expect to do so until at least 17 May. Before that announcement, it seemed that the Government had forgotten them altogether, and now we have proof that they had, because for  many students that date comes after their courses have actually finished.
This feels like a final, end-of-term insult to university students, who have had months of not being able to use libraries or labs, months without taking part in student societies or extracurricular activities, months of paying rent for accommodation that they could not use and months without being able to work, with some falling behind on rent and bills and needing to feed themselves from food banks. Is it any wonder that more than 50% of students say their mental health has got worse?
Students must be fairly compensated, both financially for rent and fees and with support to recover the learning time they have lost. The Government must more than double the funds for those facing hardship to £700 million, as suggested by the all-party parliamentary group for students.
Universities across the country have worked really hard. They have adapted to deliver courses online and invested considerable sums in doing so. However, the higher education sector is already facing huge financial uncertainty, so it is clear that universities alone cannot be expected to compensate students. The Government must step in. Will the Minister consider conducting a rapid review of the impact of the pandemic on university students and giving that review the powers to make recommendations on how students should be reimbursed by the Government in financial and learning terms? Will she consider calls to double the funds available to students facing financial hardship to £700 million? Finally, will she say sorry for the Government’s role in wrecking the last academic year for so many young people?

Michelle Donelan: I will address the hon. Member’s first point regarding 17 May. She is correct to say that some students will have reached, or will be approaching, the end of their course. However, a great number will not, and it is important to give them the opportunity to get back, for the wider university experience as well.
In regard to monitoring the impact on students, we constantly do that, and have done so throughout the pandemic, and I will ensure that we continue to do so. On financial support, we have now given an additional £85 million, which is targeted at those most in need and getting the money into their pockets. On the impact of the pandemic, yes, we all know how challenging it has been and continues to be for students, and that is why students have had a disrupted year.

Robert Halfon: In 2018, just 12.3% of the most disadvantaged pupils in England were accepted into higher education institutions. The Minister’s passion and mine is to ensure that more  people from disadvantaged backgrounds attend higher education, but does she agree that the proposal by Hull University to drop the requirement for students to demonstrate a high-level proficiency in written and spoken English is entirely the wrong way to go about that? It is patronising and counterproductive. Is it not better for universities to work with schools and colleges to ensure that all pupils reach the required standards of literacy to secure places on quality degree courses and degree apprenticeships?

Michelle Donelan: I agree with my right hon. Friend; I am appalled by the decision of some universities to drop literacy standards in assessments—that is misguided and it is dumbing down standards. That will never help disadvantaged students. Instead, the answer is to lift up standards and provide high-quality education. I assure him that we will act on this, in line with our manifesto commitments on quality.

Matt Western: Last week, there was an exam-room silence from the Government on when universities would return, with students, their families and university staff learning from newspapers what was only announced to this House days later: that many students would not return to campus until 17 May. Why has this announcement come so late, and why was it briefed to the newspapers instead of being announced to those affected? Does the Minister not see that this is deeply disrespectful to the students and staff alike? For weeks, we have had students studying technical and creative subjects safely, thanks to the incredible work of universities and staff, and for many weeks students have been back in further education settings, so will the Minister explain why further and higher education settings have been treated so differently? Her written statement ignored the work of universities and the existing situation in colleges, and offered no evidence to support this approach. So will she tell us what the scientific basis was for this decision, and will she commit to publishing this advice today, so that she is at least forthcoming with students and the sector?
The Minister announced a further £15 million this year for hardship funding. Further support is clearly needed, but, once again, the Government are simply not working to the scale of the challenge. The funding offered to students in England is far smaller than that offered by the Labour Government in Wales. Will the Minister tell us why her Government believe that students in England need so much less than those elsewhere? At every stage of this pandemic, children, young people and students have been an afterthought for this Government, let down time and again. Will the Minister finally admit that these young people have been failed and tell the House what she will do to address it?

Michelle Donelan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it has been an extremely challenging and disruptive year for students, and I assure him that students have never been and will never be an afterthought for this Government. In fact, this week we made a statement regarding the details of the plan for the remainder of students returning. We conducted a review over the Easter holidays, as we had publicly announced we would do, and we wanted to maximise the amount of time we  had to review the data. The announcement made on 5 April was regarding the things that would open up in step 2.
On further education and schools, the difference is that these youngsters do not go and form new households, nor do they travel across the country. On the data we have reviewed, we have considered the latest epidemiology data, alongside public health, economic, educational and other implications of the return. A wealth of data, papers and evidence is and will continue to be published.

David Simmonds: I thank my hon. Friend for the extensive time that I know she has personally devoted to ensuring that students from my constituency get a fair deal from their universities, on a case-by-case basis. But given that universities are autonomous and independent of Government, does she agree that the example set by the best universities, which have been very proactive in ensuring students are treated appropriately, should be seen as an example for the others to follow, so that we ensure that all students who have not received the services in education or accommodation they paid for are fairly dealt with by those institutions?

Michelle Donelan: University staff have worked exceptionally hard over the past year to enable students to continue learning, and I want to take this opportunity to once again thank them for that. If students do have concerns, they should raise them with their university, which has a duty, under consumer rights, to have a transparent and timely complaints process. They can then escalate that to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator if they remain unsatisfied

Cat Smith: I wonder whether the Universities Minister can help me respond to a query I have had this morning from a constituent, who asks me why his siblings can return to in-person teaching in school and college, he can get a haircut and he can return to his part-time job in non-essential retail, but he cannot return to his university to continue his studies in person until after this academic year of teaching has finished. Student debt after graduating from an undergraduate degree is, on average, £40,000. Peter asks me why he is paying £9,250 a year for in-person teaching that has not materialised this year.

Michelle Donelan: I assure the hon. Member that we are confident that in-person teaching and learning can be delivered in covid-secure environments, but the area of concern has and always will be the movement of students and the formation of new households, which does not occur in schools and further education colleges. Many of the things that we are opening up in stage 2 focus on being outside. Social mixing remains focused on being outside. The key thing is that they do not involve the formation of a new household. Throughout the entire process, we have been clear that students should still expect the quality of education, the quantity of provision and for it to be accessible for all.

Joy Morrissey: As university courses remain primarily online until the middle of next month to control the spread of coronavirus, will the Minister confirm that universities continue to be expected to deliver the same quality and quantity of online learning as they have throughout the year? Will she  encourage universities to extend their teaching and reviews so that students may experience classroom learning before their exams?

Michelle Donelan: The Government do indeed expect the quantity and quality of teaching to be maintained and to continue to be accessible for all, whether it is delivered in person or online. Quality is in fact an Office for Students registration condition, and students who have concerns may notify the OfS. I thank all higher education staff, who have worked tirelessly throughout, enabling students to continue their learning.

Tan Dhesi: Laura Halliwell and Isaac Grinnell are two university students on student placement schemes in my office. They have both raised concerns about their peers’ experiences during this academic year about lost teaching, mental health pressures and accommodation rent payments. As many students have been unable to go to their universities this year, missing out on teaching and the many other opportunities such as student societies and mental health services, why does the Minister think it is okay to charge £9,250 for university tuition fees this year?

Michelle Donelan: I would like to clarify that the Government do not charge £9,250 for tuition fees; universities do, as autonomous institutions. The Government set the maximum level at which universities may continue to charge. Every university has opted to do that and, in return, we have said that we expect the quantity and quality of provision to be maintained, and for that to be accessible for all. If students have concerns, they should take it to their university and, if they remain unsatisfied, go to the OIA, which can lead and has led to fee refunds. No one, however, is doubting how challenging and different the past year has been for students.

Greg Clark: Professor Whitty has said that the risk to 19 to 22-year-olds is very low. Professor Valance has said that the return of universities in the previous wave was not associated with transmission into the towns in which they are located. We know that universities are some of the best settings in the country for rigorous testing. Ten million pupils at schools and colleges went back on 8 March without incident. So why are these precious weeks for university students being lost to them, despite the evidence that we now have? Will my hon. Friend think again about this date? Every week is precious in the limited periods that people have at university. There are questions about careers guidance for people about to graduate. Will she look again at the evidence and if, as I suspect it justifies doing so, bring forward the return date?

Michelle Donelan: We have continued to review the evidence. We did a comprehensive review over Easter, taking advice from the likes of the Deputy Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Medical Officer and looking at the advice from SAGE, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is disappointing that we cannot get students back earlier and it is a very difficult situation for the students involved, but we cannot move too fast, too soon. That would risk a resurgence in infections, hospitalisations  and deaths. We are talking about the mass movement of, potentially, up to 500,000 students forming new households.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her reply to the urgent question. Are there plans to ensure that the help towards bills that students studying in Northern Ireland were able to access under the covid study disruption payment scheme rolled out by the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland will be replicated in mainland UK for Northern Ireland students studying here, so that they have financial aid to offset their huge bills for minimal interaction and teaching?

Michelle Donelan: The scheme in Northern Ireland has aimed to support those in financial hardship, as  we have, but what we have done is slightly different. We have distributed £70 million and now an additional £15 million—a total of £85 million—of hardship money to universities to help those most in need, including international and postgraduate students. That is the process we have used to get money into the pockets of those most in need.

Jonathan Gullis: I have been contacted by some university students from Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke who have felt the closure of universities more acutely from the additional costs of alternative accommodation, loss of employment and the extra costs of accessing teaching online. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the £85 million in total support being made available will deliver tangible help to those left financially struggling?

Michelle Donelan: I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why we are focused on getting money into the pockets of the students who need it now. Universities have flexibility in how they distribute this funding in a way that will best prioritise those in need, but it must be spent on supporting students, including international students, postgraduate students and domestic undergraduate students. My message to any student listening is that if they need help, they should approach their university and ask for it. There is no stigma attached.

Catherine West: I have been inundated with messages from students and their families who are really worried about the impossible position they are in, having suffered huge restrictions to their education and social life and facing a mountain of student debt. Do the Government have a proper plan to address that? Can we put some energy into fighting for these young people?

Michelle Donelan: I assure the hon. Member that I have put energy into fighting for these students. That is exactly why I prioritised ensuring that they can graduate on time, in creative and practical subjects, and that we can support them financially, particularly those who are in hardship. Again, I urge any student who is facing hardship to approach their university. These are really difficult times for students and their families, and as we navigate through the pandemic, we hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel and that next year will be much easier for students.

Steven Baker: Bucks New University in Wycombe will want to be in a position to address the logical inconsistency that has come up  several times in the House, which is that students cannot return to university but can go to non-essential retail, including to work in it. I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said. Is the heart of the matter that students returning to university form new households? Is that what the Government are really worried about?

Michelle Donelan: We had to make this decision on balance in relation to all the things that we were relaxing, because everything—even something with the slightest risk—could impact our pathway out of the pandemic. My hon. Friend is right: one of our key concerns was the mass movement of students—potentially up to 500,000 additional students—across England and the UK and the formation of new households.

Chi Onwurah: Last month, I held an open meeting with students in my constituency. They raised issues including financial hardship—current funding is wholly inadequate—and mental wellbeing, lack of planning, tuition fees, rent, professional accreditation and digital exclusion. This is not a question of consumer rights, as the Minister suggests; it is a question of students’ futures after the pandemic. I have written to the Secretary of State, but what does the Minister say to students in Newcastle upon Tyne Central who feel wholly abandoned by this Government?

Michelle Donelan: Once again, I reiterate that the Government appreciate how difficult and challenging this has been for students. It has not been the university experience that any of us would have wanted for them, and that is why we are working with universities to build back on the student experience as soon as they return. We are also working on a package of support for those who are graduating this year.
I have asked universities throughout the pandemic to prioritise mental health, setting up Student Space with the OfS, which is a £3 million additional platform, and setting up a working group and a Department for Education action group co-chaired by the Minister for Children and Families. We have now dedicated an additional £50 million to mental health via the OfS through the teaching grant next year. This is a priority for the Government, and we recognise the impact that the pandemic has had on the wellbeing and mental health of students.

Derek Thomas: Every MP will have heard from constituents that, compared with previous years, the quality and quantity of provision for students since March 2020 has not be maintained. That is certainly my experience. The Government have done a remarkable and world-leading job in supporting businesses, families and all sorts of people across the country through the pandemic. Surely they can find a way simply to write off the student loans borrowed in 2020-21. It will not solve the whole of the problem, but it is a significant step that will support students and remind them that we are on their side and that we have hope for their future.

Michelle Donelan: I would like to remark on the resilience of students during this pandemic. University staff have worked tirelessly to ensure that students did  not have to put their academic journeys or their lives on hold. We have seen some fantastic and innovative examples of this approach, but the Government have been clear throughout that we expect the quality, quantity and accessibility of tuition to be maintained. We have targeted our financial support to those in hardship and in getting cash into the pockets of those who need it. Any loan rebates would not achieve that.

Daniel Zeichner: We all understand the need for caution, but we have heard that the problem seems to be about the formation of new households and so on. May I urge the Minister to talk to universities, because not all universities are the same? The timings of terms and the patterns of accommodation are not all the same. Rather than have this fixed, hard “No, it can’t be done until 17 May”, can we not try to look for some solutions? Will she talk to Universities UK about what can be done to help?

Michelle Donelan: I regularly engage with universities. Just yesterday, I spoke to Universities UK and also held a taskforce with university sector representatives. We need an approach that is fair across the board to students, and also that is workable and deliverable. The hon. Member is quite right, every university and higher education institution is slightly different, so it would be impossible to create a bespoke, detailed model. Our goal has always been to get all of the student population back as quickly as we possibly can.

Andrew Griffith: Students across Arundel and South Downs have told me of their disappointment with this week’s announcement. Will the Minister confirm that those students with inadequate study space or mental health or wellbeing issues may return now to their term-time address and that universities have been asked to open facilities such as libraries, catering and gyms to support those who have returned?

Michelle Donelan: My hon. Friend is correct. Universities should support the return of students for mental health reasons and those who have inadequate study spaces. Universities can now reopen a number of facilities, so we have asked them to allow access to all students who are back in term-time accommodation, to safeguard both student wellbeing and to prevent isolation.

Paul Blomfield: The inquiry of the all-party parliamentary group for students in January received testimony from hundreds who felt that they had been overlooked: losing the income on which they depend from casual jobs that have disappeared and ineligible for the support available to other workers; paying rent for accommodation that they cannot use; and missing learning experiences despite the best efforts of universities and their staff. The Minister knows that the Government’s response in February and again on Tuesday fell far short of what was needed. Students in Northern Ireland have received support worth more than £500 each, in Wales £300, in Scotland £80, and in England just £43.70. Does she understand why students describe themselves as being forgotten?

Michelle Donelan: The difference is that we have started from a position of unlocking £256 million so that universities can support hardship. That is on top of  the new money of £85 million that we have now dedicated. We cannot look at it on a per-student basis. We are very open and honest that this is not a per-student calculation; this is a targeted fund to support those most in need. Universities UK has estimated, and its studies show, that, on average, hardship funding is about £1,000 for each student. I do not want any student in England to feel forgotten. This Government have certainly not forgotten them, and we wholeheartedly accept how difficult and challenging the past year has been for them.

Selaine Saxby: North Devon is the first place in England to record no covid cases for a week this year, and our students are keen to return to campus. Will my hon. Friend detail what measures are in place to ensure that they can do so safely, as they will inevitably be travelling to an area with higher rates of infection?

Michelle Donelan: Universities continue to make significant investments in student and staff safety—including updated risk assessments, assessments of adequate ventilation and covid-secure measures such as mandatory social distancing, hand washing and face coverings—and testing is available to all students, who should currently be tested twice a week at their university test centre. From 17 May, we will move to home testing, with students first asked to take three PCR tests at their university test centre.[Official Report, 20 April 2021, Vol. 692, c. 4MC.]

Rupa Huq: For my constituent Harry Wild, who faces finals in June, May is too late. Given that pubs, shops, barbers and gyms are now open, why is he still forking out £9,250, plus accommodation, for no direct staff contact? Doing a head of highlights requires far more close contact than distanced content delivery, which is happening in the Chamber as we speak. Is Harry being penalised for studying in England? In Labour Wales, hybrid blended learning is already happening on campus.

Michelle Donelan: We are confident that in-person teaching and learning can be delivered in a covid-secure environment; the area of concern has been and always will be the mass movement of students and the formation of new households. As the hon. Member pointed out, many things are indeed opening up, but most of them are outside and involve social mixing outside, and the key thing is that they do not involve the formation of new households.

Jacob Young: I thank the Minister for her work throughout the pandemic to support students from Redcar and Cleveland and those studying at Teesside University. Just like in all walks of life, regular testing will be vital to getting life at universities back to normal. Can she confirm that no student will have to pay for covid tests to return to their studies?

Michelle Donelan: I can indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend that testing plays an important part in mitigating the risk of transmission and assure him that under no circumstances will any student have to incur financial costs as a result of participating in our testing programme.

Felicity Buchan: I am very concerned about the mental health of students who are still not back at university. I am conscious that the university experience is about way more than lectures and tutorials—at   least, it was for me. Will my hon. Friend please update the House on what we are doing to support the mental health of students who are not yet back at university?

Michelle Donelan: My hon. Friend is right: the wider student experience has been extremely impacted over the last year, despite the hard work of universities and student unions. UUK is sharing best practice and ideas to support universities to prioritise and enrich the student experience on return, and we are working with UUK on that.
Throughout the pandemic, I have reiterated to universities the importance of prioritising mental health and wellbeing and worked with them to enable that, including by convening a mental health working group. We have also worked closely with the OfS and launched Student Space, a £3 million mental health platform through which students can access support during the pandemic.

Janet Daby: Time spent away from in-person learning has had a particularly damaging impact on students from deprived and disadvantaged backgrounds. Goldsmiths, University of London has raised with me its concerns about the widening gap between students from wealthy backgrounds, who have networks to help them to find jobs beyond university, and those from low-income families, who do not. To ensure that the gap in social mobility does not hold students back in the job market, what steps will the Minister take to make sure that tailored careers support and advice are provided?

Michelle Donelan: We are currently working with universities and sector representatives on a package of support for those who will graduate this year. It is important to note that we have already done a number of things, including putting an additional £32 million into the national careers service. The number of work coaches in this country is now up to 27,000, and we have the skills toolkit, which is a fantastic free resource that enables students or graduates to access courses that will add to their employability.

Bob Stewart: Has the Minister’s Department done any assessment of the impact on the levels of attainment and grades that might be achieved in finals this year? If it is less than normal, will some sort of gearing be put into the system to ensure that students are not penalised by the fact that they have had to do so much work away from the university, without the advantage of attending a library, for instance?

Michelle Donelan: Universities are autonomous institutions and all run their own assessments, so every single one of them is different in this respect. However, the Government are advocating that they introduce policies that mitigate some of the impact of the pandemic and that they are fair in doing so. Some have chosen to introduce no-detriment policies, for instance. However, this will not work in all cases—for example, if a university does not have enough information to do a no-detriment policy, or if the regulatory body that accredits the course is against that. My understanding from my work with universities is that they are on the whole being extremely flexible and accommodating for students and appreciate the sheer scale of the challenges that students have faced over the last year. I will continue to monitor the situation and work with universities on this.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: There is increasing concern from students who have not been able to take many of the part-time jobs that they would otherwise have been able to. They are not eligible for much of the Government support and they are having to continue to pay rent. Some universities have been good, of course, but the private sector has not been. Is it not now time for the Government to have serious plans to address this hardship, as we have seen in Wales, and not just the pittance that has been given, on a discretionary basis, to students, many of whom are not able to access it properly?

Michelle Donelan: It is important to remember that we have unlocked £256 million of taxpayers’ money for universities to access to support those in hardship, and we have allocated an additional £85 million. It is right that we have targeted that to those who are most in need, rather than allocating it as a blanket payment, which would have diluted the support available to those who genuinely need it at the moment. Once again, I reiterate my message to any student who is facing hardship: please come forward to your university and access that help. That includes international students and postgraduate students.

Christian Wakeford: I thank the Minister for literally being on call on evenings and weekends to answer any questions we have had on universities on a case-by-case basis. University should be some of the best days of your life. I know that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) will join me in thinking the same, given our shared time in Lancaster. However, the past year has raised severe mental health issues for everyone, as we have heard. What conversations is the Minister having with education providers to support students’ health, mental health and wellbeing when they return?

Michelle Donelan: My hon. Friend touches on a really important point. Throughout this pandemic I have reiterated to universities and sector bodies the importance of prioritising student wellbeing and mental health and moving that provision online in tandem with academic provision. I convened a working group to enable this. I have worked with the OfS to launch Student Space—a £3 million mental health project. We continue to evaluate the situation. We have also launched an action group with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), looking at mental health across the spectrum of education, because these challenges are not going away and we need to continue to support students throughout this period.

Florence Eshalomi: I have two privately run student accommodation blocks in my constituency, which in normal times are home to hundreds of students from London’s top universities. Because of the travel restrictions and physical closure, they have had to live elsewhere for most of the year, but they still continue to pay the rent. These students have exhausted all means, including discussions with their accommodation provider, and they have been looking at trying to terminate their contracts or to be offered a rent reduction, but to no avail. They have been put into an impossible position, having faced huge restrictions on their education and their social life, but they are still paying rent. All  they want is a fair deal from their accommodation provider. What plans do the Government have to address this?

Michelle Donelan: We have urged accommodation providers to have students’ best interests at heart, to review their policies and to give refunds where they can, and a number have done so, including a plethora of universities and private providers such as Unite. The hardship money is there for those students who have faced a situation where they cannot access a refund. I again urge all students to access that, particularly if accommodation pressures are putting them in financial difficulties.

Bob Blackman: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent work she has done in supporting students and universities across this very difficult period. Clearly, students are now consumers—consumers enabled to demand the best from their universities—and the key point here is getting value for money. I know that she is trying to do that. Can she also state the position in relation to international students? Many universities are wholly dependent now on the income from international students. What advice is being given to those students, who are equally consumers of our education?

Michelle Donelan: The Government’s expectations are clear: universities should maintain the quality, quantity and accessibility of provision. If a student, whether international or domestic, is unhappy, they can utilise the OfS notifications procedure to pre-empt a review, or make a formal complaint to their university. If they are still unsatisfied, they can go to the OIA, which can lead to fee refunds and has done in the past.

Lilian Greenwood: The latest ONS statistics show that around three quarters of students are already back in their term-time accommodation. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s failure to provide any information or guidance whatsoever until so very late in the day meant that many students travelled unnecessarily in anticipation of starting back after Easter?

Michelle Donelan: We have continued to give guidance and advice to students throughout. We wanted to give the maximum period possible to review the data because our objective has always been to get students back as soon as we possibly can. At every stage, we have written to students and communicated with them via universities, but I do get how challenging it is and how disappointing it will be for some students not to be able to resume face-to-face teaching until 17 May.

Duncan Baker: It is telling that the first step on the roadmap was education, so we know how seriously the Government take that subject. Will the Minister confirm that the highest rates of transmission among students are in university halls of residence and house sharing, so, regrettable as it is to have to delay the recommencement, it is simply a fact that we have to ensure the safety of this nation and that case rates continue to be suppressed?

Michelle Donelan: The Government have committed to taking a cautious approach to easing restrictions, guided by the data instead of dates. Encouraging students  on non-practical courses to return to in-person teaching will potentially lead to a significant number of students forming new households from across the country—up to 500,000—and enabling this to proceed too early may result in significant, higher numbers of infection and could increase the risk of students having to repeatedly self-isolate, which I am sure none of us would want.

Nigel Evans: I thank the Minister for responding to the urgent question; there were 29 questions in just over 40 minutes. We will now suspend for a short period.
11.12 am
Sitting suspended.

Business of the House

Valerie Vaz: Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The business for the week commencing 19 April will include:
Monday 19 April —Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill (Day 1).
Tuesday 20 April —Continuation of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill (Day 2).
Wednesday 21 April—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to counter terrorism, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, followed by a debate on the sixth report from the Committee on Standards relating to confidentiality in the House’s standards system and the seventh report from the Committee on Standards relating to sanctions in respect of the conduct of Members, followed by a motion relating to membership of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body.
Thursday 22 April—Debate on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, eight report of Session 2019-21, on Government Transparency and Accountability During Covid 19: The Data Underpinning Decisions, followed by a debate on a motion on mass human rights abuses and crimes against humanity in the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region. The subjects for those debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 23April—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 26 April will include:
Monday 26 April —If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a motion to approve the Warm Home Discount (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2021; followed by a motion to approve the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) (High-Risk Countries) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2021, No.392); followed by a motion relating to the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel) (England) (Amendment) (No.7) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No.150).

Valerie Vaz: Follow that, as they say. I thank the Leader of the House for the business. I note that there is the possibility of proroguing on 29 April, and we only have the business up until the 26th, so we look forward to a further announcement.
I start by sending my condolences and those of Opposition Members who have not had the opportunity to send them to our Gracious Sovereign and her family on the sad passing of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip. We must remember him not just as the Queen’s consort but as a husband of 73 years. I know that the country will want to remember his good works, his deeds and his wonderful personality as he is laid to rest on Saturday. May he rest in peace.
Yet again, we have to have the Prime Minister come back to clarify his remarks. Yesterday, he said at Primeand Ethnic Disparities, but it is a Government report. They set it up: it is out of No. 10 and out of the Cabinet Office. It is totally discredited, as at least 20 organisations and individuals listed as stakeholders have distanced themselves from the report.
It is not clear what this took into account because the 2017 McGregor-Smith report, commissioned by the then Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), on race in the workplace, said:
“In the UK today, there is a structural, historical bias that favours certain individuals.”
The racism at work survey published in 2019 said that over 70% of black, Asian and minority ethnic workers had been racially harassed at work in the last five years. Between October and December, 41% of black people aged 16 to 24 were out of work compared with 12.4% of their white counterparts. Forty years on from the Brixton riots, black unemployment for that quarter was at the same level as it was as in 1980s. I urge the Leader of the House: please could we have a debate in Government time on the report? There are too many unanswered questions.
Today marks 32 years since the Hillsborough disaster, and the families have worked tirelessly in campaigning for an inquiry, and that is why it is important to get the inquiry right on the Greensill debacle. I do not know whether the Government think the country is stupid, but we are absolutely incredulous at asking a person who serves as a non-executive in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to lead the inquiry. The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution said yesterday that she has had to suspend him as a non-exec. The legal profession is brimming full of talent in lawyers with absolutely no connection with the Government, BEIS or anything. Why do we not have one of them?
The Prime Minister said yesterday that it is a difficult line with the civil service and “boundaries” are blurred—that was his word—but, no, civil servants do not have two jobs. A secondment is a temporary assignment. Yes, they should get the experience of both places—the private sector and the civil service—but not at the same time. This is an abuse of power. The Government are only making appointments when it is “one of us”—one of them—just as they are doing with the board of Channel 4.
It matters because this is about public money, and public money cannot be found for NHS workers and their agreed 2.1%, but it can be found for Greensill. It matters because council tax payers have to stump up £100 now, yet Greensill is bailed out. It matters because, as the shadow Chancellor said, Greensill met Treasury officials 10 times, whereas those excluded—entrepreneurs, small businesses, the self-employed—have got nothing out of these schemes and met Treasury officials once. It matters because this is public money and it should be used in the public interest. It is like having Lex Luthor in the heart of Government, but I want to tell the Government that there is no kryptonite on the Opposition Benches, and we will fight for truth, justice and the British way of fairness.
I know that the Leader of the House talks about transparency and accountability all the time, and I know he tries very hard to do that. He has seen the way  Simon Case has acted—immediately—on the civil servants, so why has Sir Alex Allan’s post not been filled and when will the statements covering relevant ministerial interests be published? We should have had two a year, but the last one was in December 2019. I think the Government will look sleazy if they do not publish them. Former Prime Ministers released quarterly lists of donors meetings. I think the Government will look sleazy if they do not publish that, so I ask the Leader of the House: when could we have those published?
To coin a phrase, can I ask the Leader of the House to push the team at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for an update on Nazanin and Anoosheh, who has had a 67th birthday in prison? They are all in Vienna discussing it, and we need an update.
We have lost some incredible people in the House, and I want to pay tribute to Dame Cheryl Gillan. I worked with her on the all-party parliamentary group on epilepsy. She brought to the House and put on the statute book the Autism Act 2009, which means we value people on the spectrum and know they have hidden talents. She did that through her tireless campaigning for 29 years as a Member of Parliament. We will not forget; it seems like only yesterday that she was berating the Leader of the House for changing the hybrid procedure.
Ian Gibson was a geneticist and a former MP for Norwich North from 1997 to 2009. He was Chair of the Science and Technology Select Committee and joint manager of the parliamentary football team. I met him through the Manufacturing, Science and Finance union. He was so kind to people starting off on their political journey.
James Winston was valued and respected across both Houses and by all parts of the Chamber. He worked with Members in pursuit of peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, and we mourn his loss, especially at this time.
Then there is Shirley Williams—Baroness Williams. Despite being the daughter of George Catlin and Vera Brittain, she managed to carve her own way. She was absolutely brilliant as an Education Secretary and as a parliamentarian in both Houses. I saw her when I was at university. She really was, as the magazine headline said, “Sweet Williams”. She was wonderful and would have made a great future Prime Minister, as her father once suggested. She screen-tested for the “National Velvet” film, and I want to say something positive at the end: Rachael Blackmore should be congratulated on being the first woman to win the Grand National.
Finally, we cannot process this year, but I hope the whole House will join me in wishing all the Sikh community a happy Vaisakhi.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I join the right hon. Lady in wishing the Sikh community a happy Vaisakhi. I also join her in commemorating so many people who have died. This is a particularly sad business questions, because there are so many people of the greatest distinction to commemorate.
The House paid its tribute to the Duke of Edinburgh, the longest serving consort and the longest serving member of the Privy Council in the Privy Council’s history. The tributes were extremely touching and represented the heartfelt sorrow of the nation at the passing of someone who supported our constitution and our way of life.
We are all saddened by the death of a Member, Dame Cheryl Gillan, who was just such a lovely person. She came to some of the meetings held in the run-up to the various Brexit debates. She was always advising goodwill, kindliness and respect for the views of others with steely principles underlying that. That degree of kindliness as well as sense of purpose is something that we respect in Members of Parliament, but also have great affection for, and I think that is important, too.
We also mourn Peter Ainsworth, who was one of the first people to come and campaign for me when I was selected as the candidate for North East Somerset. He was a committed supporter of the party. The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) also mentioned Ian Gibson, a distinguished former Member, and James Winston. There is also Robert Howarth and Paul Marland, who was a long-serving Member of Parliament. He was very much thought of as being a dutiful Member, who served his country in the traditional way that people like me perhaps have the greatest admiration for. Of course there is also Baroness Williams of Crosby, and I hope I will have an opportunity to say a little more about her later on in proceedings. On a happier note, I congratulate Rachael Blackmore on winning the Grand National, but it is mainly a sad day, and that is one bit of solace and happiness.
To come to the right hon. Lady’s detailed questions, she raises some very important points. The report of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities is very important and makes an important contribution to the debate. It has made 24 recommendations, which the Government are considering. I think it is right that we look at the progress made in this country and recognise how different the experience in this country is from the United States, rather than assuming that everything here is the same as the many problems they have in other countries. We should recognise success as well as understanding that we always have further to go. The fundamental recognition that there is equality under the law for everybody in this country is something that we can welcome and ought to be positive about. I am sure that this matter will be discussed in this House on many occasions and raised in many different ways, because it is a subject of fundamental importance about the type of country we are.
The right hon. Lady raises serious questions about Greensill Capital and the relationships between it and Government. It is right that the review is taking place under Nigel Boardman to understand primarily, as a starting point, the use of supply chain finance. Until we understand where it started—why the Government were using supply chain finance, which prima facie is something that we would not think a Government would do—we cannot understand what has happened subsequently, so it is the right review to be taking place.
Mr Boardman is highly respected. He is a non-executive director of BEIS. He has stood aside from that during the period of this inquiry, but he is a very distinguished lawyer and I think that he will bring considerable expertise to the report. It is right that this matter is looked at fairly and properly, and it will also be looked at by a number of House of Commons Committees, which will do so with the full power and authority of the House of Commons and the ability to send for persons and papers.
The right hon. Lady is right to say that public money should be used wisely and properly. In that context, she is not right to say that Greensill was bailed out, because it was not. That is the whole point: the lobbying was done, but the lobbying did not succeed. I think that is something that should reassure us about the propriety of the way this Government are run. Who someone knows and how they are connected does not mean that they get what they want. That, ultimately, is the test of whether a Government are operating properly, and this Government are operating properly.

Fiona Bruce: There are still pockets of my Congleton constituency, in both the rural areas and the towns, where constituents struggle to get access to fibre broadband, or indeed access to broadband or the internet at all. The pandemic has, of course, highlighted how crucial this is, not least for those in education or business, so may I press the Leader of the House to clarify what progress is being made towards fulfilling our manifesto commitment to ensure that everyone can have access to full-fibre broadband?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question because I, like her, represent a rural constituency, and this is so important for our constituents. I am glad to report that over 96% of all premises in the United Kingdom can access superfast broadband, thanks to the success of the Government’s superfast broadband programme, meaning that the UK has one of the highest levels of rural superfast connectivity in Europe.
However, the Government are aware that we need to upgrade more of the network to gigabit-capable speeds as soon as possible, hence the expenditure of £5 billion of taxpayers’ money to support the roll-out of gigabit broadband in the hardest to reach, predominantly rural, areas of the country through our new UK gigabit programme. Progress is being made in connecting rural premises to gigabit speeds through our existing superfast broadband, but this is a big commitment of Her Majesty’s Government and one that I hope will help both my hon. Friend’s constituents and my own.

Owen Thompson: May I associate myself with the comments of the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House, and send my condolences and those of the SNP to the royal family, at this difficult time for all of them, on the passing of the Prince Philip? I also pay tribute to Dame Cheryl Gillan, Peter Ainsworth, Ian Gibson, Robert Howarth, Paul Marland, James Winston and Baroness Williams. It has clearly been a very sad time for a lot of families, as it is for so many around the country through these challenging times.
Turning to other matters, I have raised previously issues around transparency, and we have seen again this week, with the investigation now under way into lobbying, the actions of David Cameron and the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Lex Greensill as an adviser, that there are clearly further challenges that still need to be addressed. Will the Leader of the House commit to doing everything in his power to see that everything possible is done to ensure that any reviews undertaken go far enough, that any questions about the effectiveness of existing legislation are taken full account of, and that we put in place any necessary measures to ensure that such instances cannot and do not happen in the future?
I am personally slightly disappointed that we have not yet seen a further return of private Members’ Bills, particularly my Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill, which I suggest would go some way to addressing some of these issues around transparency in the awarding of contracts. In the short time that we have prior to the end of the Session, will the Leader of the House give consideration to how some of those Bills might be taken account of?
We are all very well aware of this Government’s lack of respect for our democracy in consistently refusing to acknowledge the sovereign will of the Scottish people to choose their own future, but it took a new turn this week, with the Government challenging through the courts the unanimous decision of the Scottish Parliament to pass the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill and the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill. Will the Leader of the House allocate Government time to a debate on the democratic deficit that exists in these isles as a result of this Government’s determination to ignore all views but their own? Does he agree that there can be no doubt now that the only way for the people of Scotland to get their own Government, a Government that they vote for, is by exercising our democratic right to choose, starting by voting SNP in both votes on 6 May?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: First of all, on the Greensill reviews, obviously Committees of this House can make what inquiries they wish and set their own terms of reference. However, I think it is a mistake to rush to judgment, particularly in relation to David Cameron, who was a very successful Prime Minister who succeeded in getting the nation’s finances back in order. Rushing to judgment is not a proper way for this House to operate. We need to have the reviews and consider them. That is what is happening, both within Government and this House, and that is the proper constitutional process.
As regards private Member’s Bills, I do not think there is sufficient time in this Session, but the hon. Gentleman should be aware that in the new Session there will be a new ballot, under the auspices of the Chairman of Ways of Means, and you never know, he may be lucky and be able to bring forward his Bill on a Friday later in the year. Who knows what excitements await us?
As regards the sovereign will of the Scottish people, that was expressed in 2014 in a referendum. Now would not be the right time to consider this issue, when there is the recovery from the pandemic to have. However, I am fascinated by the voting advice that the hon. Gentleman gives. It does not seem to match the voting advice given by Mr Salmond, who seems to be having a most interesting time in Scotland. I noticed from The Telegraph today that he could not even get the letters for his new party in the right order. I wonder whether the same will afflict the SNP—one never knows what set of initials they will come up with next. What the people of the whole of the United Kingdom want is good government for the whole of the United Kingdom and a balanced settlement that people accept.
In relation to the court case that the hon. Gentleman referred to, it is really important that we live within the boundaries that have been established and accepted,  and that we operate within a system that is properly constitutional. It is not for one side or the other to arbitrarily change the devolution settlement.

Philip Hollobone: There has been precious little good news relating to the covid pandemic, but one positive benefit has been the revival of community spirit, as residents have come together to support each other in these difficult times. One such excellent example can be found in William Street in Kettering, which has been nominated by readers of the Northamptonshire Evening Telegraph as one of the county’s best places to live. In William Street, which has 66 houses, a small block of flats, a converted shoe factory and a church, neighbours have come together not just to clap for carers but to organise socially distanced Sunday singalongs, an Easter egg celebration, street cleans, a wedding prom, a street carnival, and pumpkin and best-dressed window competitions. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all the residents of William Street on their revival of the blitz spirit and in hoping that their example will be an inspiration to others?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: William Street sounds a very happy street to live on, with singalongs and pumpkin prizes, so I absolutely congratulate William Street and the people living there, who I am sure will be pleased by the tribute paid to them by my hon. Friend. He is right that throughout such a difficult year for the country there have been many wonderful moments of kindness up and down the nation, which have done us proud. The outpouring of support for our care workers has been highlighted often, but there has also been an explosion of volunteering and fundraising. We should be very proud of how our nation has reacted in such difficult times.

Ian Mearns: I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and for announcing the Backbench business for next Thursday, 22 April. I also associate myself with the comments about Dame Cheryl Gillan, who among many other things was a regular customer at the Backbench Business Committee and an excellent chair of the all-party parliamentary group on autism.
Will the Leader of the House do whatever he can to help to expedite the re-establishment of the Backbench Business Committee at the earliest possible opportunity following the Queen’s Speech, so that debates applied for, agreed by and timetabled by Back-Bench Members can be led in the Chamber in a timely way by Back-Bench Members?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman, a distinguished Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, makes a very important point. The Government always like to see Committees set up in a timely fashion and will use their best offices, after the Queen’s Speech, to see what they can do to ensure that a Chairman, whoever that may be, is back in post as soon as is reasonably practicable.

Antony Higginbotham: Although many think of Burnley just as the town centre, we also have a number of picturesque green villages, including Worsthorne and Hapton. Unfortunately, in 2018, the Labour-controlled Burnley Borough Council adopted a local plan that allocates significant parts of these villages, and elsewhere,  to housing developments and more, often directly against the wishes of local residents. This is just one of the planning issues we face. Will the Leader of the House find Government time for a debate on local plans and how we can find a way to make sure they command the support of local residents?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend raises a point that is raised by many right hon. and hon. Members from across the House, and planning is always a contentious local issue. The Government’s planning White Paper, published last summer, set out proposed reforms to increase community involvement in the preparation of local plans, including a simpler and digitalised plan-making process, with more opportunity for local people to influence the location and standard of new developments in their area. This is essential to planning for the homes the country needs, providing the clarity that communities and developers deserve about where new homes should be built and ensuring that development is planned, rather than the result of speculative applications. Plans should be produced in a way that respects crucial local assets, including open countryside and the green belt, but I should always remind hon. Members that new houses must be built. As they are built, we want to ensure that they are beautiful. If they are beautiful, local communities may be more inclined to accept them.

Charlotte Nichols: This week, many loyal British Gas staff were sacked for refusing to accept a new contract that made them work longer hours for less pay, in the latest iteration of the growing national scourge of fire and rehire. Companies such as British Gas trade off our country’s name but do not have our country’s interests at heart. The Government have repeatedly stated that they consider these practices to be unacceptable, but those words will mean little to those ex-British Gas workers today. So will the Leader of the House please outline when the Government will be bringing forward legislation to ban fire and rehire, once and for all?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Government do take this issue extremely seriously, and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) has condemned the practice in the strongest terms on many occasions. The situation at the moment is that BEIS officials engaged ACAS in November 2020 to gather evidence on the prevalence and use of fire and rehire in workplaces. ACAS spoke to business and employee representatives in confidence, and has now concluded its work and shared its findings with BEIS. Officials are considering that evidence and the Government will communicate their next steps in due course, but it is right that a proper process is undertaken to see how prevalent this practice is. We would reiterate to businesses—I would say to my capitalist friends—that capitalism works when capitalists behave well and treat their employees well, and get the best motivation and success from their company and from those who work for them.

Chris Green: On Monday, I was delighted to visit the newly opened one-stop shop in Daisy Hill. The volunteers Chris Hill, Rosie Bea and Beverly Hill, run the charity shop, and advice and digital services for the local community, and Anne Marie Broadley, who helped set it up, was delighted that  so many people have stopped by to say hello. Will my right hon. Friend offer them congratulations on their achievements, and next time he is popping by or passing by, will he pop in?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend said that people were popping in to say hello. May I encourage them to pop in and actually spend some money, because in a one-stop shop that is really what you need? Like our hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), who asked his question a moment ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) offers a great tribute to the voluntary spirit of his constituency. I would be delighted to join him in congratulating Chris Hill, Rosie Bea, Beverly Hill and Anne Marie Broadley of the One Stop shop in Daisy Hill. These voluntary initiatives are how communities are made, how they come together and how they succeed, and, certainly, if I am in Bolton West, I shall stop in the One Stop shop.

Alex Davies-Jones: Diolch, Mr Deputy Speaker. We all recognise that the pandemic has had a huge impact on young people, whose lives have been particularly disrupted, yet antisocial behaviour is on the rise and residents across Pontypridd and Taff-Ely are experiencing vandalism and disruption at an alarming rate. The simple truth is that the police and youth services do not have the resources to keep up. Will the Leader of the House therefore please commit to a debate in Government time to allow us to tackle antisocial behaviour at its root?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The key thing here is having police on the streets. It is remarkable how the presence of a police officer can stop antisocial behaviour early on and make people realise the problem caused by antisocial behaviour, which is sometimes just thoughtlessness, rather than criminality. It is important that there will be 20,000 extra police officers, of which 6,620 have so far been recruited, and that the police will have £15.8 billion of taxpayers’ money to help them to tackle this scourge. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that it is one of the most disagreeable aspects. It is the counter to what we were saying about community spirit. Antisocial behaviour causes disproportionate distress to people who are probably the most community-minded and it needs effective local policing to deal with it.

Lee Anderson: Global technology firms such as Google are not being held to account. A lack of regulation allows pension scammers to con millions of pounds out of people, and tech firms such as Google can also make millions of pounds from fake adverts that can ruin a business’s or an individual’s reputation. It is time to hold these multibillion-pound companies to account, so will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate in the House to tackle this very important subject, which could help to protect people’s money, livelihoods and their reputations?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend about the concerning growth and scale of online fraud. Online fraud can have a severe effect on individuals and businesses and on society more broadly. The Government work with law enforcement, industry and consumer groups to tackle online fraud. The Home Office, Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and  Sport are all working together to consider additional legislative and non-legislative solutions via a continuing programme of work. I would say, though, that not all of this is legislative. One thing that we should all always remember and should say to our constituents is that if they ever see anything online that is too good to be true, it is not true. That single piece of advice will save many of us from the illegal activities of scammers.

Alistair Carmichael: May I say to the Leader of the House that I hope that Members of all parties might be allowed to pay some tribute to my late colleague and friend Baroness Williams of Crosby? She was somebody who blazed a trail for women in politics in over five decades in public life in this country. She was blessed with a magic combination of both a fine political mind and genuine political warmth, which allowed her to reach out to people across the party divide and to people of no parties. I realised this for myself in 1983, when I heard her address an outdoor rally at a by-election in Darlington. There was a man behind me saying, “Hear, hear!”, and there was a lot of agreement coming from him. I turned around to see who this new convert to liberalism was, and it was, in fact, none other than Screaming Lord Sutch. I told Shirley that story some two decades later and it says a lot about her that she instinctively just loved the joke at her own expense. She will be enormously missed by people in all parties, but especially among the family of Liberal Democrats.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that tribute and I am grateful that he told me in advance that he would make it, because Shirley Williams was actually a great friend of my father. They knew each other from their Oxford days and Shirley got my father his first job. She wrote in an Oxford magazine that my father read the Financial Times every day at breakfast and the then editor of the Financial Times offered him a job, so my family has always been enormously grateful to Shirley for setting my father off in his journalistic career.
She was also, as the right hon. Gentleman says, one of the most charming people to meet: always kindly and thoughtful, and good to her friends. As somebody who was very much in favour of state education, she actually came to speak for me for a society I ran at Eton, which I think is symbolic of how kindly she was. When I last met her, she said to me that she was very glad she was my brother’s godmother, not mine, because had she been mine she might have had to disagree with me a little bit in public. Again, I thought that showed such kindliness and charm.
Above and beyond that, she was also a stunningly effective politician, a great Member of both the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, and somebody this nation can be proud of for having produced a politician of such capability, such effectiveness, but also such kindliness.

Robert Largan: Last night, there was yet another fire on the moors of the High Peak, on Tintwistle Low Moor. I pay tribute to Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service, the Peak District Moorland Group and others for their efforts in fighting these fires,  but it is very frustrating that they are forced to respond to so many fires usually caused by disposable barbecues. May we have a debate on preventing fires on our moorland and on the future of the laws on disposable barbecues? Can I urge the Government to do more to educate people on the countryside code, so that visitors to the Peak District know how to properly protect and respect our beautiful countryside?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Wildfires obviously pose a great risk to our countryside. Natural England has published a refreshed countryside code to advise us all on visits to the countryside. Everyone should enjoy parks and open spaces as we come out of lockdown, and we should be encouraging people to look after our natural environments and the livelihoods of those who work there. The Government are launching a long-term countryside code campaign to increase awareness of the code through 2021 and beyond. I think that is the right approach: to encourage people to behave responsibly, to educate and to tell people about what is expected of them in the countryside. I am afraid to say I am always more cautious about banning things.

Gavin Newlands: Nearly a year ago, I warned the Government that if they did not act on fire and rehire when it reared its ugly head with British Airways, many others would follow. Just yesterday, hundreds of British Gas engineers were sacked without redundancy pay because they refused to sign an inferior contract. My Fire and Rehire Bill (Employment (Dismissal and Re-employment) Bill is essentially now dead, but we are aware that the Government received the ACAS report two months ago. I wrote to the Secretary of State urging him to publish the report and make a statement. Had they done so and given assurances that action would be taken in the Employment Bill, perhaps that would have forced the hand of British Gas. Will the Leader of the House give his colleague in the Cabinet a bigger nudge and get him to take action please?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, because I think it is in the interests of public companies to behave well to their employees. Bear in mind that their employees are also their customers for a big company like British Gas. The name of British Gas has now been traduced in this House on a number of occasions. People who pay attention to our proceedings may feel that they dislike the way British Gas is behaving and want to get their gas supplied by another firm. There are powers in markets as well as in government, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government do take this really seriously. What my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has said is what the Government mean and the report is quite rightly being carefully considered.

Jane Stevenson: Will the Leader of the House join me in sending Sikhs in Wolverhampton best wishes for Vaisakhi and in thanking them for their efforts during the pandemic? Sikhs’ ongoing commitment to serve other people is always admirable, but during the pandemic it has been especially notable. We owe them a debt of thanks. Will he also welcome news that in September Wednesfield in  my constituency will see the unveiling of a statue to honour the extraordinary bravery of 21 Sikh soldiers at Saragarhi in 1897?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Absolutely. I join my hon. Friend in wishing a happy Vaisakhi to the Sikh community. I join her in paying tribute to their generosity and the principle of service that we have seen from NHS workers and doctors, police officers, armed forces personnel and all key workers.
I also join my hon. Friend in celebrating the news that the memorial will be unveiled in Wednesfield in September. The Sikhs provided 20% of the British Indian Army in the first world war and were the most decorated community in the British empire, winning more Victoria Crosses per capita than any other. When I was the Conservative candidate in The Wrekin, the family of the first Sikh to win the Victoria Cross lived there, and I must confess that I was very proud to meet them and to have an association with them, now 20 years ago. We should be very grateful for the enormous contribution made to the United Kingdom by members of the Sikh community.

Jessica Morden: Last month’s update on compensation for victims of the contaminated blood scandal was welcome, but there is still no provision or scheme for bereaved parents such as the Smiths from Newport, who tragically lost their son Colin, aged just seven, after he was infected with blood from Arkansas prison. Can we have an opportunity to discuss compensation schemes and to impress on Cabinet Office Ministers the need to finally include and, crucially, acknowledge bereaved parents?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Lady raises a point of huge importance. This is something that the Government have an inquiry on, and that inquiry is continuing. The inquiry has not lost pace because of the pandemic; it has been holding remote hearings and will come to a conclusion. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General will be having meetings with the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, but also with the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), to update people on what is happening and to give reassurance that this matter is taken deeply seriously. It was a terrible failing with appalling consequences for individuals and their families.

James Sunderland: Given the decision by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that local councils should cease meeting virtually from 7 May, will my right hon. Friend confirm whether there is a similar plan for this place? If that is not the case, perhaps we could re-extend that courtesy to the shires, noting that attendance at local council meetings has never been this good.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The House’s proceedings are determined by Standing Orders, and the facilities for virtual meetings were created by statute. This was not a decision by MHCL; it is that the temporary statute expires on 7 May. However, as I understand it, a High Court ruling is due before May on what capabilities there are, and the Government will be supporting the action by Hertfordshire  County Council, Lawyers in Local Government and the Association of Democratic Services Officers as the case is heard.
Virtual proceedings have helped councils, but they are allowed to meet, because it is a legitimate business purpose. They have to take covid-secure measures, as we are taking in this House to ensure that this House operates. The Government are not unsympathetic to considering how these things operate in future, but the legislation that was temporarily introduced expires on 7 May. My hon. Friend will know that we have a Queen’s Speech coming, and we have a number of Bills going back and forth between the Lords and the Commons, so the ability to legislate between now and then is extremely limited.

Jeff Smith: Last week, one of my constituents visited a local park with her friend and their two young babies. They both began breastfeeding and before long saw a stranger taking photos of them with a telephoto lens. They confronted him, and the man refused to delete the photos, even when asked to do so by the park warden. They reported it to the police, who said there was nothing they could do, because it was a public place and taking photos is not illegal. It may not be illegal, but it is, as my constituent said, “disturbing and intrusive” and surely unacceptable. Could we have a statement from an appropriate Minister on how we might tackle a problem that left my constituent feeling
“violated and discouraged from breastfeeding outside the house”?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman raises a difficult issue of privacy in public spaces. It is not easy to legislate for every possible circumstance. People in public are obviously in public and it is hard to prevent from people seeing things that take place in public, but you would expect people, out of courtesy, not to photograph people doing things that are of their nature private in public.

Virginia Crosbie: I lead the Anglesey freeport bidding consortium, which includes Bangor University, Stena and my island council. Our bid is the only bid in north Wales and the only bid to include a university. Does the Leader of the House share my concern that the Welsh Labour Government dragging their heels over releasing the Welsh freeport bidding prospectus is delaying much-needed potential investment into my constituency and the whole of north Wales?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The problem with socialists is that they never want to level up; they always want to level down. They therefore always try to postpone economic opportunity because they wallow in economic failure. The freeport programme will be of great benefit to the whole of the United Kingdom, and it is exciting to see so many compelling bids being submitted by local business groups from across the whole of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have been emphatic in their support for establishing freeports in Wales. Her Majesty’s Government have discussed the issue with Ministers in Wales and with the many Welsh business groups that want take advantage of the opportunities that freeports bring, from tax benefits to greater freedom to innovate and build exciting, prosperous trading hubs throughout the whole country. The  Government do not want to deprive the people of Wales of this opportunity, and we hope that the foot-dragging socialists will pull their feet out of the mud and get on with it.

Alan Brown: The Australian Government have paid redress to my constituent, Christine Gow, for the institutional childhood sexual abuse crimes that she suffered, and she is going to use the money to pay for psychological counselling. In Australia, that redress is disregarded for benefit assessments, but here the Department for Work and Pensions states that she has to deposit the money in a trust fund, which involves lawyers and costs of up to £1,000. Can the Leader of the House help me to get the DWP to apply an exemption akin to what it does for money awarded under the British child migrant scheme?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman, as so often, raises important constituency issues that will have a wider effect for other people across the United Kingdom. I will certainly take this up with the DWP. His request sounds to be an eminently reasonable one. This is a compensation payment from a Government that would be treated differently if it were from Her Majesty’s Government in the UK rather than Her Majesty’s Government in Australia.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: My right hon. Friend and I share an enormous respect and affection for the great King Alfred, who defeated the Vikings against all the odds. Does he agree that victory would never have been possible without a good deal of local support, and that the only way to provide local support is through a proper referendum in which the votes are counted, and not through a cheapskate survey to which anyone anywhere in the world can contribute? Somerset local government’s future should never be decided by the toss of a coin in a Minister’s office or, dare I say, by a dodgy consultation. What is the hurry? The people need to be heard first, and woe betide anyone who takes Somerset for granted and ignores its people’s verdict or their voice. Could we please have an urgent debate on this?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is, of course, right to say that King Alfred pulled together the ealdormen of Somerset, Hampshire and Wiltshire to defeat Guthrum. It was a coming together and it was done from the Somerset levels, where he famously but probably apocryphally burned cakes as he was considering how he would deal with the problem. I know that the matter my hon. Friend raises is being carefully considered by my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who has excellent judgment and believes in our great county, which is one of the oldest counties in the country, with an unbroken historic tradition. What would concern me personally about any referendum is that it would deal with only a part of the county and not with the whole of the county, and it would therefore not necessarily be the coming together that my hon. Friend is talking about.

Rachael Maskell: I want to acknowledge the incredible, inspirational Ian Gibson. He was such a mentor to me, from my days in Norwich to this day. He will be missed.
The reopening of the economy is something we all welcome, and at each stage we must be careful, including with its evaluation. However, to leap from this to mass gatherings at sporting event trials is deeply disturbing given the terms that are being proposed, not least at York racecourse. We have new variants of covid-19 creeping into our community. Will the Leader of the House take my concerns, of which I will write to him, to Cabinet colleagues, and will he arrange for an opportunity for us to debate this in the House and for all MPs impacted by these decisions to meet the Secretary of State and his officials to discuss our concerns?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Lady raises concerns that many Members have. There was an opportunity to debate them immediately before the recess, with the continuation of the Coronavirus Act 2020. There were Health questions earlier this week, and my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has been assiduous in attending the House to give oral updates on the current situation. Obviously the Government want to see unlocking take place, and the road map has been set out, but if people have questions, they are entitled to raise them, and if they do not get answers directly, I will do whatever I can to facilitate answers.

Sir David Amess: I join others in offering my deepest sympathy to members of the royal family on their great loss and to the family and friends of Members past and present who have died recently.
Following the reopening of some businesses earlier this week, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on support for the personal care sector? I have been contacted by a number of local establishments that are still being impacted by the pandemic and have not been offered sector-specific financial support, such as value added tax reductions. I hope that the personal care industry will be supported in its reopening.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is right to raise the needs of the personal care sector, which is a very significant employer and provides great joy to many customers. I have never been more relieved to have a haircut than I was on Tuesday night, when finally the barber’s clippers went snip, snip, snip and a degree of respectability was restored. This week, shops, hairdressers, nail salons—I am a less regular visitor to nail salons, I must confess—outdoor attractions and pubs and restaurants outdoors can open once again, which is good news for those operating in those sectors.
At the Budget, the Chancellor announced new restart grants worth up to £18,000, which will help more than 680,000 eligible businesses, including those in the personal care sector, to get going again. On top of the grants that closed businesses have received since January, businesses could receive up to £36,000 in grants this year. To support those that are not eligible for these grants, taxpayers are giving councils in England an additional £425 million of discretionary business grant funding, on top of the £1.6 billion they have already received. Nobody could say that this amount of money is a snip.

Nigel Evans: I cannot tell you how relieved I was to get to the hairdresser’s on Monday morning.

Navendu Mishra: Research from Unison has found that more than half of NHS workers are considering leaving their position in the next year, with one in 10 considering it very seriously. Additionally, Unison North West has raised the fact that many healthcare assistants are expected to carry out clinical duties that are above and beyond their pay grade, with many employed at band 2 while being trained to do band 3 work, which equates to them missing out on almost £2,000 per year. That is happening at Stepping Hill Hospital in Stockport borough, as well as right across Greater Manchester, and it will almost certainly be happening across the country. Will the Leader of the House allocate Government time to debate healthcare assistants’ pay rate and banding, and does he agree that this pay injustice needs to be rectified urgently?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think I would rather give the good news on NHS staffing, because since last year, there are almost 50,500 more people working in the NHS, of whom 6,600 are doctors and almost 10,900 are nurses. Recruitment in the NHS is very important, and we will employ 50,000 more nurses and 6,000 more doctors in general practice by the end of this Parliament. That is the target for the Government to deliver, while ensuring that people want to work in the NHS, but the figures for the last year are very encouraging.

Fay Jones: May I add my own tribute to Dame Cheryl Gillan? I knew her for 20 years and adored her, and she will be sadly missed.
The Leader of the House knows that I have raised the health of the River Wye and River Usk, which run through my constituency, a number of times. This week, “Panorama” exposed water companies dumping untreated sewage into rivers, and specifically into the River Usk. However, the Welsh Labour Government, supported by the Liberal Democrats, insist that farmers are to blame for the problem and have voted through a misguided nitrate vulnerable zone across the whole of Wales. That is grossly unfair on farmers in Brecon and Radnorshire, and the Minister responsible should withdraw the proposals until the allegations can be explored. Will the Leader of the House grant time for a debate in this House on river pollution so that we can get to the bottom of this scandal and ensure that farmers in Brecon and Radnorshire are not unfairly blamed for a problem they did not cause?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend, along with our hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), points out the dangers of incompetent socialist Governments getting the wrong end of every stick that comes within their sight. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, our hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), has had a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) to discuss river pollution. The Government take this responsibility very seriously.
Water companies have a legal duty to avoid pollution and must act quickly to reduce any damage that happens as a result of their activities. The regulations are clear and are enforced robustly. Over the past six years, the Environment Agency has brought 48 prosecutions against water companies, securing fines of £35 million. The  Environment Bill will also place a statutory requirement on water companies to produce drainage and sewerage management plans to help deliver more of the actions needed to address the risks that sewage assets may pose to the environment. Action is being taken, but my hon. Friend is right to stand up for farmers and stop sewage.

Patricia Gibson: My constituent Tony McDowall travelled to Istanbul in September last year. In the early hours of the next morning, he called his mum in a state of some distress, telling her that he had been awoken from his sleep by two men attempting to break into his hotel room. A few hours later, Mrs McDowall was contacted by local police at her home in Arran to be told that her son was dead.
Mrs McDowall was the last person to speak to her son, and despite being advised by the British consulate that her son’s death is being investigated by the Turkish authorities, no one on the investigation team has made contact with her or updated her on the status of progress of the investigation into her son’s death. I urge the Leader of the House to please use his good offices to ensure that a representative from the UK Foreign Office contacts Mrs McDowall to assist her in finding out what happened to her 28-year-old son.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: This is a very sad case, and one’s sympathies go to Mrs McDowall, who must feel very bereft, both at the death of her son and at the lack of information. I assure the hon. Lady that I will take this up with the Foreign Office immediately after this questions session has finished.

Rob Roberts: The balloons were inflated and the banners unfurled in anticipation and excitement that we would be able to see the Chancellor walking down Mold high street in his lunch hour to get a sausage roll from Hulsons bakery for his lunch. But there must have been some mistake—they have sent the Treasury to north-east England instead of north-east Wales. There must have been some typographical error along the way. Undeterred, the people of Delyn will not be denied. The local Jobcentre Plus team would be delighted to have a local Department for Work and Pensions office in north Wales, and I am sure the farmers of Delyn would be equally excited to be able to beat on the door of a local Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs outpost at their earliest convenience. What does my right hon. Friend advise is the best course of action to ensure that north-east Wales is not forgotten in this redistribution of Departments?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The difficulty is that I think it would be hard to satisfy all 650 Members of Parliament. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) is no longer in the Chamber, but the Shetlands islands outpost of HM Treasury may pose logistical difficulties.
It is a really important priority for the Government to ensure that Ministries move out of London so that we move away from this entirely London-centric approach to government. We need more variety in where businesses, Departments and Government business operations are placed to ensure that we reflect views across the whole of the country. I fear, however, that if people were to  move to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts), they would be so affected by the beauty of the area that they might find it difficult to concentrate on their work.

Kevin Brennan: May we have a debate on the dangers to the taxpayer of incompetent capitalist government? Cardiff University’s Wales Governance Centre has pointed out that the Test and Trace system in England, which has been outsourced to private companies, cost twice as much as the system in Wales where local government has been used.
I had a very disturbing report from one of my constituents that he had received the test results of two children from England, despite the fact that he has lived in Cardiff for 35 years. When I contacted the Department of Health and Social Care, they told me that it was probably because the wrong mobile phone and email details had been entered, and that no process was in place to amend customer details. The Government have allocated £37 billion to cover the cost of the Test and Trace system over the next two years, and it cannot even amend incorrectly entered customer details!
The Leader of the House talked about the unacceptable face of capitalism earlier, about British Gas’s behaviour, but what about the incompetent face of capitalism?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I note that of the tests carried out in Wales, 64% have been provided by Her Majesty’s Government. Had we left it to the Welsh Government and the public sector in Wales, only 36% of tests would have been carried out. I think that shows the effectiveness of Her Majesty’s Government—the United Kingdom Government—at getting things done. What the hon. Gentleman is proposing is that things do not get done. I, for one, am in favour of action, not of dither and delay.

David Johnston: Despite the hard work of postmen and women, my constituents have had months of problems with Royal Mail deliveries, their letters, cards, magazines and appointments arriving late or not at all. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate about how Royal Mail should give the service that our constituents deserve and are paying for?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue, which has been raised with me before. I passed on the comments to the Royal Mail and had a full response from the Royal Mail sent to the Member who raised the issue previously.
It is worth pointing out that the Government are not involved in the day-to-day operations of the company and do not play a role in handling or resolving complaints regarding Royal Mail. However, the Royal Mail has contingency plans to mitigate disruption to postal services, which are overseen by Ofcom. Ofcom has recognised that the covid-19 pandemic is an emergency under its regulatory framework. It continues to monitor Royal Mail’s performance carefully. I will pass on my hon. Friend’s comments, in the hope that I receive as good a reply on his behalf as I received last time.

David Linden: May we have a statement from the Leader of the House on the issue of inconsistency and its impact on the part of the Conservative party? In December 2019, his party had entered the  general election campaign with a clear message of “Get Brexit Done”, and it won the election and was able to move forward with Brexit. If people go out and rightly cast both votes for the SNP on 6 May, why will his colleagues not accept that those people should get the independence referendum that the SNP is promising?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman knows that there was a referendum in 2014, which had a clear result. The leading lights of the separatist movement in Scotland—that is to say, Ms Sturgeon and Mr Salmond—both said that it was a generational issue. A generation has far from passed, and we are in the midst of a pandemic. We have a serious issue that we need to recover from.
The authority over a referendum is of course a reserved authority, and it is right that devolution should be allowed to work and to flourish. The results of elections to the Scottish Parliament are of fundamental importance, of course, but what the hon. Gentleman is saying is essentially a distraction from the business of dealing with the pandemic. It is irresponsible of the SNP to be saying it, rather than concentrating on getting over the pandemic and its consequences, from which this country is suffering.

Imran Ahmad Khan: With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to Dame Cheryl Gillan and Baroness Shirley Williams. Both served with distinction for many years in this House, improving the lives of their constituents and providing thoughtful insight into numerous debates. Both were characterised by kindness and firmly rooted principles.
Provisional figures given to me by Revolut show that, in comparison with a pre-lockdown Monday, spending on Monday 12 April in Wakefield was at 98.5%. On the high street, the figure was at 136.4%, but for pubs, spending was watered down—although not the drink—and remains at only 43.9% of pre-pandemic levels. Inevitably, this has had an impact on a number of businesses in my seat, such as Ossett Brewery and Tigertops Brewery. Can my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House find Government time for a debate on support for businesses in this sector as we continue with the road map out of lockdown?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful, as always, to my hon. Friend. I am pleased to hear the good news from Wakefield on the return to a degree of normality, but I am sorry to hear that the pubs are only at 43.9% of pre-pandemic levels—my hon. Friend clearly has a lot of drinking to do to help get Wakefield back up to average.
There has been a good deal of Government support—taxpayer support: £5 billion for the new restart grants, which include pubs, and the business rates holiday, which includes pubs, and there is a total cost of cash grants to the taxpayer of £25 billion. Ultimately, though, this is up to all of us. If we want to save our pubs, we have to go into them. That does not mean that we have to drink yards of ale, though some may choose to, but we want to go in and have something to eat—I believe scotch eggs are popular in certain quarters—and to buy our children a Coca-cola or a lemonade.
We need to support our own pub industry if it is to survive, and we should lead by example. Perhaps, when times allow, we should have political functions in pub rooms—[Interruption.] The shadow Leader of the House wants to go on a pub crawl. Mr Deputy Speaker, I can think of no finer companion for her than you—you could take her round the finest pubs of both your constituencies and get Britain’s pubs back into liquidity.

Nigel Evans: I have been accused of many things over the past 29 years as a Member of Parliament, but not doing my bit to help the pub has not been one of them. I look forward to joining the right hon. Lady on visits to whatever hostelries she might wish to go to.
I thank the Leader of the House for making his statement and responding to 30 questions in over one hour.

Jim Shannon: rose—

Nigel Evans: Go on. I want to hear the words, “point of order”.

Point of Order

Jim Shannon: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you outline House procedure that will enable me and others in this House to mark the tremendous victory of Northern Ireland women’s football team over the favourites Ukraine in qualifying for the women’s world championship Euro 2022? The team made history in what was classified as the ultimate victory for the underdog. This House wishes the Northern Ireland women’s football team continuing success for the future.

Nigel Evans: I wanted to hear the words “point of order” because over 29 years I have heard points of order stretched to the limit in this place—but none more so or in a better fashion than the one I have just heard. I just want to say that the hon. Gentleman has put it on the record. We are all incredibly proud of what the Northern Ireland women’s football team has achieved and we wish them well for the future. Please pass on our best wishes. We will now suspend for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Domestic Abuse Bill (Programme)  (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Domestic Abuse Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 28 April 2020 (Domestic Abuse Bill (Programme)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(James Morris.)
Question agreed to.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Nigel Evans: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 41 and 43. If the Lords amendments that engage financial privilege are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered into the Journal.

Clause 2 - Definition of “personally connected”

Victoria Atkins: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 4 to 8.
Lords amendment 9, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 10 to 32.
Lords amendment 33, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 34 to 36.
Lords amendment 37, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 38, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 39.
Lords amendment 40, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 41, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 42, and Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.
Lords amendment 43, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 44 to 82.
Lords amendment 83, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 84 to 86.

Victoria Atkins: Before I start my speech, may I beg your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, and place on the record not only my condolences to Her Majesty the Queen but my and my constituents’ heartfelt thanks to His Royal Highness Prince Philip? He was the personification of public service, dedicating his life to Her Majesty and to serving our country for more than 70 years, and he did so with great style and often a twinkle in his eye.
May I also pay tribute to my friend, the right hon. Dame Cheryl Gillan, who passed away very recently? She would have loved to take part in today’s debate. She   was a huge advocate for the vulnerable, including those who live with autism. She was a wonderful, wonderful friend and colleague to us all, and she will be very, very sorely missed.
We support the vast majority of the 86 amendments that the Lords have sent to us. Indeed, we have worked with peers in many instances to bring those amendments forward. There are 12 sets with which we do not agree and I will deal with those in due course. But I would like to take a moment to reflect on the events of recent weeks and the concerns, the experiences and indeed the fears expressed by women and girls across the country.
This Bill will help millions of women and girls who are living with abuse, whose emotions are manipulated by their abusers for their own disgusting gratification and control, and who want happier, healthier lives free from abuse. However, thanks to amendments made in this place and the other place, the Bill will reach even more women than that. On Report, I was pleased that we were able to respond to the calls by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and many other hon. Members to clarify the law surrounding the so-called rough sex defence. Hon. Members also argued, as part of that debate, for a bespoke new offence of non-fatal strangulation to strengthen the criminal justice response to that form of physical abuse. We listened carefully to the debate on the matter, including the compelling evidence presented to me by Dr Cath White, taking into account the concerns that cases of non-fatal strangulation can often be difficult to prosecute. That is why we concluded that a bespoke offence was necessary and that that should apply both to domestic abuse cases and to other cases where strangulation or suffocation were a factor. On conviction of the new offence, as now provided for in Lords amendment 36, the defendant could receive a harsher sentence as the harm required to qualify for the maximum five-year penalty has been reduced. We are drawing firm lines in the Bill as to what can and cannot constitute lawful violent sexual behaviour.
But harmful and abusive behaviour sadly extends beyond that. Lords amendment 35 seeks to extend the revenge porn offence to include threats to disclose such images. One in seven young women have been subjected to threats to use revenge porn. I thank colleagues across the House who have worked so hard on this topic, including the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee—my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes)—my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) and for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), and of course Baroness Morgan of Cotes in the other place. I would also like to thank a young woman I met through my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe—Natasha Saunders, who described to me her experiences of the use of threats of revenge porn. She has found the wherewithal to use those experiences to campaign on this matter very strongly and effectively.
Although the Law Commission is currently reviewing the law around intimate image abuse, we recognise the case for immediate action to better protect victims from that form of abuse and Lords amendment 35 does just that.

Maria Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for all that she has done with regard to recognising the problems around threats to publish intimate images. Will she join me in saying that we need to make sure that the law is all-encompassing in this area? It is important to improve the law on revenge pornography as it stands now, introduced by this Government, but it is even more important that we have a wholesale review of this area, such as that which is part of the Law Commission’s review.

Victoria Atkins: I agree completely with my right hon. Friend. I thank her for the work she has done over many years to address this and other issues particularly affecting women and girls. We very much take that point. We have worked on the amendment with Baroness Morgan to have an immediate impact, but in addition we look forward to receiving the Law Commission’s report and recommendations later this year—it is looking at the whole of the law on the use of intimate images and other types of malicious communications on the internet. If the law needs to be changed to reflect recommendations, we can address those in subsequent legislation. These clauses apply to all relationships and all encounters of a sexual nature, from a Tinder hook-up to a marriage of many decades. Those protections will be enshrined in this Bill.
I turn to another amendment that I know has been welcomed warmly by survivors and campaigners: the extension of the coercive and controlling behaviour offence to include post-separation abuse. We listened very carefully to debates in this place, as well as to charities such as Surviving Economic Abuse and, of course, to survivors themselves. We reviewed the offence to see how it is working after five years of being in force and we published that review in March.
We acknowledge that coercive and controlling behaviour continues and indeed may escalate following separation, so amendment 34 will extend the offence to cover post-separation abuse between former intimate partners and interfamilial abuse, regardless of whether the family members are living together or not. The amendment will send a strong message to perpetrators that controlling or coercive behaviours, irrespective of the living arrangements, are forms of domestic abuse and that the criminal law is there to protect victims.
The Bill also revolutionises the help that is available to victims who need to flee relationships to refuge or other safe accommodation. It is revolutionary in that it helps to ensure that they are helped to recover from their experiences. Part 4 introduces a duty on tier 1 local authorities to provide specialist services to such victims and we have announced £125 million of funding to support that provision in the Bill.
There is a cross-party desire to see those measures matched by equivalent provision in respect of community-based support. This Government are alive to such calls. Police and crime commissioners, and others, already provide significant community-based support to victims of crime, but we need better evidence of the gaps in current provision and how they might best be addressed. That is why the Government have now committed to consult on the provision of community-based support as part of this summer’s consultation on the new victims’ law. That commitment to consult is backed up by Lords amendments 5, 8 and 10 to 16. Lords amendment 5 will  place a duty on the domestic abuse commissioner to publish a report, under her new powers in the Bill, on the provision of and need for community-based services. Lords amendments 8 and 10 to 16 will place a duty on tier 1 local authorities, with the support of their domestic abuse local partnership boards, to monitor and report on the impact of the safe accommodation duty on the provision of community-based support in their area. Taken together with the responses to our victims’ law consultation, those amendments will ensure that the Government have all the information they need to build on the strong foundations of existing community-based services.
Some of the most upsetting and torturous experiences that victims can experience happen after a relationship has ended, in the family and civil courts. Lords amendments 17 and 24 to 31 relate to special measures and the ban on cross-examination in person in civil proceedings. In short, those amendments more closely align the position in the civil courts to that in the family courts, so that victims of domestic abuse have the benefit of automatic eligibility for special measures to enable them to give their best evidence and to ensure that they are protected from being cross-examined in person by their abuser. Our justice system should not be used as another form of abuse. This Bill will help to protect victims and secure justice.
In the case of the family courts, perpetrators can continue abuse through repeated unmeritorious proceedings. Lords amendment 33 amends the Children Act 1989 to prevent such vexatious claims. The amendment makes it clear that a court may make a barring order in circumstances where it is satisfied that a further application made by the named person would put the child or another, for example the parent victim, at risk of harm. For all the victims and survivors I have met, and whose stories we have heard in the Chamber: these measures are to help you all to secure justice, as you deserve.
Lords amendment 39 would ensure that a health professional working in a general practice that holds an NHS contract cannot charge for evidence to show that a patient has been the victim of domestic abuse for the purpose of obtaining legal aid. We recognise that it is already the case that most GPs do not charge for such evidence, but the amendment will ensure that no victim faces that barrier to obtaining legal aid.
The Bill also reaches beyond these shores. Lords amendments 70 to 82 amend the extraterritorial jurisdiction provisions in the Bill to remove the dual criminality requirement for relevant sexual offences, including rape, committed outside the UK by UK nationals. That will enable UK nationals who commit marital rape in countries where such behaviour is not criminal to be prosecuted in UK courts. This is also a significant step forward towards ratifying the Istanbul convention, as it addresses one of the three outstanding matters set out in the statement to the House in October last year.
I turn to the 12 sets of Lords amendments to which we have tabled motions to disagree. I emphasise that, in line with our approach throughout the Bill, where we do not agree with the amendments, and where possible, we have sought to address the concerns raised through practical measures instead. The first set of amendments relates to the definition of domestic abuse. Lords amendments 1 to 3 would bring abuse by all carers of disabled persons, paid and unpaid, within the definition  of domestic abuse in the Bill. I hope it is clear—it perhaps does not need saying—that the Government abhor all abuse, and we have every sympathy for the spirit of these amendments. Abuse of disabled people by their carers must be called out and acted upon. The issue before us today is whether this is the right Bill to strengthen the protection for disabled people.
The focus of this Bill is on domestic abuse as it is commonly understood—that is, abuse by a current or former intimate partner, or by a family member. That is the approach taken in the Istanbul convention, which I know many hon. Members are keen for the UK to ratify. Where a disabled person is abused by a partner or family member, the abuse will be covered by the definition as already agreed by this House. However, Lords amendments 1 to 3 would bring in a much wider range of relationships, outside a domestic abuse setting. We should steer away from diluting the purpose of the Bill.
As I have said, however, in inviting the House to disagree with these Lords amendments, we do not wish to downplay or deny for one moment the experience of disabled people who are abused by their paid or volunteer carers. There are protections in place, including the offences in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 relating to ill treatment and wilful neglect. However, we have listened carefully to the experiences and concerns raised in this House and the other place. We want to find practical ways in which to address those concerns. That is why the Government intend to carry out a review of the protections for people at risk of carer abuse. We will engage with the noble Baroness Campbell of Surbiton and the disabled sector on the scope of the review, but it would broadly seek to examine the protections offered against carer abuse and the support available to victims. We have listened and we will act.
Lords amendment 33 takes us into the arena of judicial training, requiring the Secretary of State to set out a strategy and timetable for such training. Again, we agree, and we understand the motivations behind this amendment. No one can dispute the need for judges and magistrates to be properly trained in these matters, nor do we dispute that this must continue to be a developing process, and one of improvement. Indeed, the judiciary understands this and agrees. The Judicial College is committed to reviewing and improving training on domestic abuse. Moreover, the president of the family division has indicated that he will consider making recommendations regarding training, taking into account this Bill, the harm panel report and the four recent Court of Appeal judgments in domestic abuse cases.
The issue with Lords amendment 33 is not the ends it seeks, but the means of achieving them. It is not for the Government to dictate to our independent judiciary how they are trained. There are important constitutional principles at stake here; I have no doubt that the president of the family division will have taken notes on the debates on this amendment in the Lords and will again today, and will take appropriate action, but it is right that we leave it to him to do so and do not undermine the independence of the judiciary by endorsing this amendment.
I move now to Lords amendments 37, 38 and 83. They deal with two separate but related issues. Lords amendment 37 aims to extend the householder defence in section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to victims or survivors of domestic abuse. Although the Government sympathise with the aim behind the amendment, we are not persuaded that it is necessary. We are not aware of any significant evidence demonstrating that the current full and partial defences available are failing victims of domestic abuse accused of crimes against their abuser. We are also concerned that the proposed defence could, as it provides a full defence to murder, be open to misuse, potentially even by an abuser, who could seek to claim they were the victim of domestic abuse, rather than the actual victim. We believe therefore that although it is very difficult to achieve, the law currently strikes the right balance between the interests of the defendant and, importantly, those of the victim as well.
Lords amendments 38 and 83 would provide for a new statutory defence for victims of domestic abuse who are compelled to commit certain criminal offences on the basis of having no realistic alternative. Currently, several defences are potentially available to those who commit offences in circumstances where they are in an abusive relationship. These include the full defences of duress and self-defence, for example, as well as, in homicide cases, the partial statutory defences of loss of control or diminished responsibility.
The Government are aware of the concerns raised by both the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and Victims’ Commissioner among others, specifically in terms of the disparity in the way the courts sometimes deal with male and female defendants who have been found guilty of killing their partner. Again, in a spirit of co-operation, because we understand the motivations behind these arguments, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is reviewing the sentencing practices in cases relating to domestic homicide, and we believe this is a more appropriate response to some of the issues raised by these amendments.
Lords amendment 40 seeks to create a data-sharing firewall so that the personal data of victims of domestic abuse that is given or used for the purposes of their seeking or receiving support is not used for immigration control purposes. I again stress, as I hope hon. Members across the House would acknowledge, that victims of domestic abuse, whatever their immigration status, must be treated as victims first and foremost. Guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which was updated last year, makes this clear. The national policing lead for domestic abuse is also clear that information sharing between the police and the Home Office can be in the interests of victims.
None the less, we recognise the concerns about ensuring that there are safe reporting pathways open to migrant victims of domestic abuse. That is why, following the policing inspectorate’s report on the super-complaint lodged about the police sharing immigration data, we have committed, in good faith, to review existing data-sharing procedures and publish the outcome by June. Having established the police super-complaint process in the Policing and Crime Act 2017, which was supported, I am pleased to say, by Labour, we should allow that process to operate as intended. Given that commitment, we would argue that Lords amendment 40 is premature  and, in fact, unnecessary, as the results of our review can be implemented through changes to the NPCC guidance.
I turn now to Lords amendments 41 and 43, which deal with the related matter of support for migrant victims of domestic abuse. Lords amendment 41 in effect seeks to extend the destitute domestic violence concession to all migrant victims and provide them with a route to apply for indefinite leave to remain. The DDVC and the accompanying domestic violence rule were established to provide a route for settlement to those here in the UK on a spousal visa who, had they not suffered domestic abuse and been separated from their abuser, would have had a legitimate expectation of settling here. It was not designed for those who are here in a temporary capacity, who would not have had such a route to permanent residency.
For other migrant victims, the key consideration is not their immigration status, but the provision of support when they need to flee an abusive relationship. We accept that not all migrant victims have access to the necessary support and we need to address that, but we do not accept the proposition, reflected in Lords amendment 41, that someone who has come to this country on a temporary basis—for example, as a student—should have a route to settlement by virtue of being a victim of domestic abuse. However, we want to help such victims to recover and escape such relationships.
Throughout the passage of this Bill, we have heard about the role that Southall Black Sisters has played in helping migrant victims of domestic abuse to get the support they need. I am therefore delighted to announce that, following a commercial competition, Southall Black Sisters has been successful and will be running the £1.5 million support for migrant victims scheme, which will run for 12 months and will provide not only safe accommodation to victims, but provide us with the evidence on which to take long-term decisions on future support arrangements for migrant victims. As with the DDVC, such measures can be put in place on a non-statutory basis, so these amendments are unnecessary.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): I am encouraged by what the Minister said. I say to her, as always, gently and honestly, that while I appreciate the £1.5 million, I am just wondering whether that is not—forgive me—a paltry sum of money when more may be needed.
Victoria Atkins: The hon. Gentleman will know—we have discussed this on many occasions—that the programme of support is not only delivering immediate support to migrant victims, but gathering the data that we need on the range of support and services that such victims need, so that we can build a sustainable programme going forward. The scheme will run for 12 months. I am really looking forward to working with Southall Black Sisters on this scheme, and from that we can then build a programme of work. This is not the end of the line for migrant victims, and I reassure the House on that.
Lords amendment 9 seeks to introduce statutory regulation of child contact centres. We accept the need for appropriate regulation, but this is already achieved in private law family cases through the National Association of Child Contact Centres accreditation framework and existing protocols, which ensure that the family courts and CAFCASS refer parties only to accredited centres. In public law family cases where children are in the care   of the local authority, comprehensive statutory provisions are already in place, which determine how local authorities should discharge their duties, including in relation to maintaining contact between a child and their family while protecting the welfare of the child.
We have not seen evidence to suggest that the existing NACCC accreditation framework or the statutory framework governing local authorities is failing such that the cost and bureaucracy of a statutory accreditation scheme are justified. Since the debate in the other place, however, Lord Wolfson, the Minister responsible for family justice, has written to the president of the family division and the chief executive of CAFCASS requesting that they raise awareness among their colleagues and officials of the judicial protocol and memorandum of understanding that have been agreed between NACCC and CAFCASS. We will continue to work with NACCC to keep the position under review, but the case for Lords amendment 9 is not made out at this time.
Finally, let me deal with Lords amendment 42, which seeks to strengthen the management of domestic abuse perpetrators. Again, this is an objective with which we can all agree, but we have concerns about how the amendment would work out. The first limb of the amendment seeks, in effect, to create a new category of offender to be managed under multi-agency public protection arrangements, commonly referred to as MAPPA. To put this in context, last year nearly 86,000 offenders were managed by MAPPA.
The Government believe that creating a new MAPPA category for high-harm domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators would bring added complexity to the MAPPA framework without compensating benefits. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 already provides for serial and high-harm offenders to be managed under MAPPA. The real issue, therefore, is not the statutory framework but how it is applied in practice. Here, we accept that there is more to do, and we are strengthening the MAPPA statutory guidance to include sections on domestic abuse.
We recognise, too, that having access to an information management system that can effectively support the police and others in risk managing high-harm offenders is essential. ViSOR, the dangerous persons database, is now almost 20 years old and so does not offer the most up-to-date functionality. Work has begun on the new multi-agency public protection system, or MAPPS, a user-focused and transformational system for the management of offenders, which will be piloted from next year. MAPPS will support the more efficient and effective management of high-threat offenders and improve information sharing between frontline agencies. Interestingly, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill also strengthens the data-sharing powers of statutory and non-statutory agencies, including, for example, domestic abuse charities.
The second limb of Lords amendment 42 would require the Home Secretary to promulgate a national perpetrator strategy. We have already committed to doing just that as part of a holistic domestic abuse strategy to be published later this year. We have therefore tabled amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 42 to enshrine that commitment in law.
In conclusion, I know that I have taken some time to set out the Government’s position, but this is an important piece of legislation that has the capacity and the potential to do so much and to help so many of our constituents, so I hope the House will forgive me for setting out our  reasons in some detail. We need to get this Bill passed and on the statute book so that it can start to help victims of domestic abuse and other victims as quickly as possible, and I commend it and our amendments to the House.

Jess Phillips: Like the Minister, I wish to place on record my own and my party’s sadness on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen. I suppose all your life you get used to the existence of the royal family as if they are always going to be there. In the passing of Prince Philip, we realised how lucky we are as a nation to have a sort of backbone that is always there—a family who are not always perfect, like anyone’s family, but who we can look to. I and we all feel very keenly in light of the pandemic the loss to the royal family specifically and to us as a nation.
We also share in the Minister’s sadness at the loss of Dame Cheryl Gillan. Regardless of political party, she was a friend especially to every woman in this House. To every woman from every party who came, she offered words of advice and words of exasperation in the lady Members’ rooms. She was one of a kind, and she will be missed genuinely and keenly across the House. She would definitely have been here today, without question. She spoke in almost every single one of these debates. We will miss her further, and no doubt we will all seek to take on her work.
Following the death of Sarah Everard, heartbreak, fear and anger ripped through the country—a response to the endemic violence that women and girls suffer. People felt it in their bones. Responding to such an outpouring of grief is our job. It is our duty and a privilege as parliamentarians to take that emotion, that fear, that rage, that passion and that injustice and to turn it into policy and law. It is our job to do something meaningful.
The question for the House today, as we consider the amendments inserted into the Bill by the other place in the heat of those moments, is: who do we decide to save? I will briefly talk through which amendments we are supporting and why, as the Minister has done.
I welcome very much, as I have throughout its passage, the immense changes to the Bill. It is unrecognisable from the day it started, which I do not know if anyone can remember; it seems so long ago. The spirit in which the Bill has been forged—that is how it feels—has always been to seek amendments and to work to improve it, and my comments will continue in that exact same spirit as we seek to continue to amend it.
Amendments 40, 41 and 43—I am sure nobody will be surprised to hear my views on migrant victims of domestic abuse—would allow migrant victims to access support and protection just like everybody else and just like I could. Without the amendments, victims will be left trapped in abusive households. It is as simple as that. The Government will seek to tell us that they have proposed a pilot project, which we have heard about today. I am pleased to hear that the pilot has gone to Southall Black Sisters, I believe in partnership with Birmingham and Solihull Women’s Aid—a place very close to my heart—but the specialist organisations and independent commissioners have all been very clear that the pilot is inadequate, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) alluded to.
Analysis by the domestic abuse sector suggests that thousands of victims could be left unprotected and unsupported under the pilot scheme. Students here studying, for example, might be raped, battered and abused by their partners. Thousands of students have this week talked on the Everyone’s Invited site about sexual assaults on campus. Foreign students would not be able to seek refuge in the same way that I can under the current rules in this country if they needed to escape.
This pilot is not good enough. It will only provide minimal, short-term support for 300 to 500 women. There is no money, for instance, for counselling, therapeutic intervention, interpretation costs, children’s costs and medical or travel costs. What happens, then, when the 501st victim visits? I can tell you what happens to the 501st victim, because it is what happens now. It is happening to Farah, who was routinely tormented and assaulted with a belt by her father and trapped in that abuse without access to public funds or support and protection. She said:
“I made many calls to the council and even the national domestic violence helpline and many other organisations for people who suffer domestic violence. They all said the same thing: I had no recourse to public funds, so they couldn’t and wouldn’t help me. Some of them even said it was the law not to help me. I guess that no recourse to public funds means that it’s okay for me to be violated physically and mentally abused by my father. I guess the Government approves of that.”
Lords amendment 40 establishes safe reporting mechanisms which ensure that all victims of domestic abuse feel able to come forward to the police. Perpetrators know at the moment that they can use immigration status as a weapon against vulnerable, frightened victims—“If you tell the police, you’ll get deported and you’ll never see the kids again. If you go to the police, they’ll lock you up in a detention centre.” I have seen this thousands of times.
At the end of last year, three police oversight bodies said that the data sharing with immigration enforcement was causing “significant harm” to the public interest. If victims cannot report, those perpetrators remain out there. We are leaving violent rapists and dangerous, violent men in our community, able to hurt people again and again. I listened to the Minister’s comments on this, and obviously I welcome the idea of a review. In terms of the idea that it is premature to ask for the law to be amended to protect these victims, I have stood in the House asking for this for at least four years. It does not feel premature for my constituents who had threats to kill and ended up in detention. It does not feel premature when I had to go to Yarl’s Wood to collect them.
I have to disagree with what the Minister said. These amendments do not ensure indefinite leave to remain for all victims of domestic abuse or allow some mythical path to dodge immigration processes. They are about getting victims out of an abusive and dangerous situation, on an equal footing to what any one of us in this House would expect for ourselves and our daughters. I also expect it for all my constituents.
Moving on to other serial offenders whom we currently leave on the streets and those victims who are at the highest risk of harm, Lords amendment 42 requires serial domestic abuse or stalking perpetrators to be registered on a database and accompanied by a comprehensive perpetrator strategy. The Labour party  supports this amendment. Zoe Dronfield almost died when her ex-partner attacked her with a meat cleaver. Zoe spent weeks in hospital recovering from bleeding to the brain, a stab wound to her neck and a broken right arm inflicted during an eight-hour ordeal at the hands of Jason Smith. Zoe discovered after reporting her case to the police that Smith had abused 13 previous victims. There is a desperate need in this country to do something to identify, manage and monitor these high-harm perpetrators of stalking and domestic abuse. They would not have been met by current MAPPA. [Interruption.] The Minister claims that that is not true, but they were not in these instances.

Victoria Atkins: I just want to clarify this, because it is an important detail. Category 3 of MAPPA is defined as “other dangerous offenders”. It does not matter whether that offender has committed section 18 grievous bodily harm or criminal damage, which, as the hon. Lady will know, is a much lower offence. It is the risk assessment of that defendant in the circumstances of the offence that matters and puts them in category 3. That is the point—it already exists.

Jess Phillips: If it already exists, why was Jason Smith allowed to go on and abuse 13 other people? It is not just Jason Smith, of course—it is the person who killed Hollie Gazzard, the person who killed Jane Clough and the person who killed Helen. The reality is that this is not working, and the victims in these instances, like Zoe Dronfield, have spoken very clearly, and the agencies have spoken clearly. They have asked us to look again and help to protect them.

Victoria Atkins: Just to assist the House, as I hope I made clear in my speech, we know there have been horrific instances where, in the system itself, those risk assessments and the management have not been done properly. I think we are having a disagreement about whether putting in a new category will change that. We want to look, and we are doing so through the statutory guidance, at how these assessments are made on the ground. That is what will make a difference, not a statutory framework.

Jess Phillips: I can sympathise with what the Minister is saying, but I would ask the House and the Minister to sympathise with somebody on the frontline who has been watched again and again, through one multi-agency risk assessment conference after another, or a serious case review or a domestic homicide review. Again and again, the same thing is said—agencies do not speak to each other. The idea of amending the statutory guidance but not putting in place some legislative framework so that this has to occur is just more, “Oh, let’s see if we can get agencies speaking to each other again.” It just is not enough. It is not just me who thinks it is not enough. When I spoke to Zoe Dronfield herself this morning, she told me that she was devastated. In the heat of the Sarah Everard killing, she felt that the Government were listening, and today victims like her feel as though they have been let down.
The Government amendment in lieu is not enough. It is perfectly fine in its own right and the Labour party called for a perpetrator strategy in Committee, but it is not the same as what is proposed in Lords amendment 42. It is not even nearly answering the same question.  Dangerous criminals are on our streets and in our homes, and repeating the same acts of violence and abuse over and over again, moving from victim to victim. Nothing in what the Government have proposed, I am afraid, has anywhere near enough teeth or will account for, identify and offer safety to the victims now dead at the hands of the most serial perpetrators. The amendments from the other place are strong, and I very much imagine that it will successfully push back. The Labour party stands ready to support it as it does so, and stands to support the victims.
Disabled victims are currently left out of the Bill. Lords amendments 1 to 3 change the definition of “personally connected” to reflect the lived experience of disabled victims of domestic abuse. Disabled people can be victims of domestic abuse by paid and unpaid carers, with whom they have close, intimate relationships. For victims, this abuse of trust and power is experienced in exactly the same way as that perpetrated by a mother, a father or a partner, so it should be recognised as such in the Bill. The expansion of the definition of “personally connected” will not dilute it, as has been suggested by the Government, but fortify it to protect those who right now are being domestically abused because they are dependent on another person in their lives. This is what disabled people have asked for, and I am sure we will see after today if the review proposed by the Government is satisfactory to those voices, who are the ones we must listen to in this.
Moving on to training of the judiciary and the accreditation of child contact centres, I want Members in this House to know that today they will be voting against making it mandatory for family court judges to be trained on domestic abuse. The Government are claiming that Lords amendment 33 threatens the independence of the judiciary. They have yet to elaborate, and the Minister did not elaborate on this point earlier. However, I shall assume—she can of course correct me if I am wrong—that she and those who sit behind her, both metaphorically and actually, are using the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which gave the Lord Chief Justice responsibility for training. I am assured that those who tabled this amendment in the other place took legal advice on this exact thing, and they do not agree that it is unconstitutional, but think it fits very well with that Act.
The amendment was drafted by a peer who is a QC, and was accepted by the parliamentary Clerks. On Report, a number of significant legal minds voted in favour of the amendment, including QCs and the former Deputy President of the Supreme Court. I would very much welcome a copy of the Government’s legal advice. There is absolutely no desire on our parts to do anything that is unconstitutional. We are not even saying what the frame of the training has to be, just that it has to happen. The idea that the Lord Chief Justice would push back, saying it did not have to happen and was against the independence of the judiciary, is something, frankly, that we would want to push against.
The Government’s own harm review found that comments made by judges in the family court included, for example, that a woman could not be a victim of domestic abuse because she wore make-up to court. Judges also found that women were emotional and temperamental when they cried about their abuse in the court room. Who knew that we did not need the police,  the courts or welfare for victims of domestic abuse? We should have just told women to pop on a bit of make-up, and that would have protected them from domestic abuse. That is essentially what is being said in our family courts: if a woman wears make-up, how can she be a victim of domestic abuse? That was not said by me but by a judge in our family courts, and that kind of attitude is not just insulting but dangerous, because terrible practice in our family courts leaves children alone with violent perpetrators. I am not offended by the sexism; I am frightened for people’s lives.
Lords amendments 37, 38 and 83 seek to understand the impact of domestic abuse. Amendment 37 would amend the law on self-defence and offer justice for victims who, because of suffering long-term violence, rape or coercive control, are driven to using force against their abuser. Sometimes terror, desperation and despair can drive a victim to inflict violence in self-protection. Society is beginning to understand that. The law must too.
Lords amendments 38 and 83 provide a defence where a person is coerced into a crime because they live in a situation of domestic abuse, and is based on existing legal protections given to victims of trafficking who offend. This is an already existing situation. The Minister said earlier that there is no evidence, but I would push back, as somebody who worked for many years in women’s prisons and in female offenders’ services, that there is plenty of evidence of women offending as a result of a pattern of sexual exploitation, coercion and domestic abuse. In fact, it was very well evidenced that one of the pathways to offending for women is domestic abuse—it is written in most Government documents. There is therefore quite a body of evidence that there is a problem in this instance.
These defences do not prevent individuals, no matter the circumstances, from being held accountable, but they are protections and take into account the true impact of domestic abuse on a person. In rebuttal of the amendments, the Government assert—without a shred of evidence in this instance—that such defences could be used by perpetrators. I would be happy to read any evidence that the Minister has of that, but there is no such evidence that I am aware of, and I am more than slightly annoyed that the Government then ignore the fact that the issue of no recourse to public funds gets used by perpetrators, when we see that every day—I guess we just have to pick and choose when these things are an issue in terms of which amendments we want to get through. There is very little evidence, if any, that such defences are used by perpetrators, but there is huge amounts of evidence in other areas.
Now is the time for deeds, not words. Today we can say that, yes, we have included migrant victims in this Bill, we have included disabled victims, we have improved victims’ access to justice and we have sought to stop perpetrators before they do the same thing again. Let us not have to look ourselves in the mirror and say, “We could have done more.”
The Domestic Abuse Bill has been a huge part of the work that I have done since I came into this House. I am going miss it; maybe that is why I want it to go back to the Lords—I just cannot let it go. Along with victims’  organisations and many brilliant and brave victims, we have worked to amend, educate and improve and to build consensus and agreement with the Government, and it has been an honour at many times. That is what we are doing here today; we are always seeking to improve the Bill, not for political wins, but for millions of terrified victims and their children in this country.
Their Lordships and the Baronesses have been incredibly thoughtful, thorough and detailed in their amendments. We should listen, because I promise hon. Members that eventually, for every single one of these amendments, a terrible case will come along that proves that we should have acted. It will not take long; they come every three days. Let us try to make that happen less.

Theresa May: If I may crave your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish, as the Minister did, to take the opportunity in this Chamber to pay my tribute to our late right hon. Friend, Cheryl Gillan. Cheryl was an incredible person. She was a fierce defender of her constituents and proudly put forward their interests, but she was also a great friend to MPs across this House. As the Minister and the shadow Minister recognised, she was particularly a friend to women in this Chamber. Quite simply, with the passing of Cheryl Gillan, this House has lost one of the best of its Members.
Before I comment on the amendments, I want to say a huge thank you to all those who have been involved in this Bill from the very inception of the idea of having another Domestic Abuse Bill. Although I do not necessarily agree with all the Lords amendments, I recognise that everybody has been working to make the Bill what they believe to be absolutely the best. This really important Bill will save lives and protect the too many people who, daily, are sadly abused by their partners and those they are living with in horrific and terrible ways.
I turn now to specific amendments. I have just referenced the abuse that takes place, and I fully recognise the intention behind Lords amendments 1 to 3. We should, of course, have absolutely zero tolerance of abuse by carers. The very name “carer” means that they are supposed to be looking after and caring for the person they are with. One of the most important aspects of the Bill—it seems very trivial, but it is one of the most important aspects—is the definition of domestic abuse, and the fact that we are adopting that wider definition of abuse. Domestic abuse is not simply abuse that takes place within a domestic setting. It takes place between two individuals who have a particularly close and intimate relationship, and it is that personal connection that I think is important.
The Government are absolutely right to be working with those who have raised, in particular, the abuse of disabled people to look at what protections need to be put in place, why the system is not currently working and why the arrangement that can deal with these cases does not always appear to be working. What lies at the heart of domestic abuse is the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. That is why it is important that we do not widen the definition in the way their Lordships have proposed.
Of course, domestic abuse can continue outside the domestic setting—for example, in a workplace or online. That is one of the reasons why I particularly welcome Lords amendment 34, to extend the offence of controlling  and coercive behaviour to a situation where the perpetrator and victim are no longer living together. It is a mistake to think that domestic abuse ends if the two individuals, the perpetrator and the victim, are physically separated by no longer being together in the same premises. This is an important amendment. As we know, too many survivors find themselves subject to controlling and coercive behaviour even after they have been separated from their perpetrator. I commend the role played by my noble Friend Baroness Sanderson in putting forward the amendment. I also commend her for all the work she has done on domestic abuse when she was working for me in No. 10 Downing Street and subsequently in her time in another place. I am sure she will continue to work on these issues.
I want to come on to the Lords amendments that I do not agree with. Lords amendment 33 is about training for judges. I have heard the arguments across the Front Bench on that issue. During lockdown 1, I joined Dr Peter Aitken, Elizabeth Filkin and the former Supreme Court judge Nicholas Wilson to produce a report called, “Seize the Moment to End Domestic Abuse”. We focused particularly on the Bill and its implications. One important recommendation we made to the Ministry of Justice was that the MOJ should ensure the proper training of judges on the implications of the Bill once it is enacted. The shadow Minister is absolutely right that there have been some very bad cases where the attitude of judges has shown that they simply do not understand domestic abuse, the nature of domestic abuse or the wide range of abuse that can take place. It is important that training is the responsibility of the Lord Chief Justice, and I think the commitments given by the President of the Family Division and the Judicial College are important in that respect. I would simply say to the Government that it is important that the Government make sure that those steps are put in place and that training is put in place.
I want to raise a question that may be answered later. There is an issue about who decides the nature of that training, how good the training is and what it actually covers. I am sure there are those who would say that the judiciary have had training already. Well, it is patently obvious that there are some who perhaps did not imbibe the training as well as they might have done.
This point is not specific to the amendments, but, if I may, it is not just the judiciary whom we need to ensure are trained. We need to ensure that the police, local authorities and others are trained on the implications of the Bill when enacted if we are going to see it being implemented. One thing we sometimes forget in this place is that it is not just about passing pieces of legislation; it is about what then happens with that legislation and how it is implemented.
I will now come on to one of the more contentious areas in the amendments, which has been a long-standing issue: the question of support for migrant victims. The Minister and the Government have given a clear commitment to ensure that the victims of domestic abuse are treated as victims, whatever their immigration status. Of course, systems of support are already in existence—the destitute domestic violence concession scheme, as has been referred to by others, is for those who are here on a spousal visa, while victims who are also victims of modern slavery can be referred to support available through the national referral mechanism—but the concern is that there are those who are falling  through the net. The Government undertook a review. They have now undertaken to put in place the Support for Migrant Victims scheme. The Minister announced that Southall Black Sisters will run that scheme, which I welcome.
It is important that we recognise that not all victims are the same and that we are able to identify the specific circumstances and the specific protections and support needed in those cases where people are currently falling through the net. I support the Government’s decision not to support the Lords amendments on these particular issues. What matters is that victims are recognised as victims, regardless of their status. What we must now allow is the good intention of providing extra support for victims inadvertently leading to more victims.
On data sharing, which has been linked in the amendments, the issue is not as simple as it is sometimes portrayed. I am very pleased to be able to say that this is, I think, the first use of the police super-complaints process, which was introduced, as the Minister said, under the Policing and Crime Act 2017, so I have some sense of bearing some responsibility for it. That is good, because it shows that it can work.

Jess Phillips: It won’t be the last.

Theresa May: The hon. Lady is right; it won’t be the last. The important thing is that it has been shown that it works and that a super-complaint can be brought. Let us respect that process and do what has been recommended by HMICFRS—I apologise for the initials; I think I put the fire service in with the inspectorate of constabulary—and, as the Government say, undertake that review and put into place whatever is necessary as a result of it.
On Lords amendment 42, on the register, this has been a matter of debate for some considerable time. It has been raised with me by constituents and by one of my local councillors on behalf of a resident not in my constituency. What I would say is that simply putting somebody on a register does not mean that protection is going to be provided. There was an exchange across the Front Benches about MAPPA and how it is operating. MAPPA can currently cover these cases of serial domestic abuse offenders and high-harm domestic abuse offenders, so there is a question as to who would be covered who is not already covered. If they are already covered but there are still these cases, the question is not whether the system applies to these cases, but why the system is not working in relation to them.
Fundamentally, one problem all too often seen in a number of areas involving the police and others relates to information sharing between agencies. We do not improve information sharing between agencies simply by putting into legislation that somebody’s name has to go on the register. I am sorry, it is hard to say that, but it is the case. If it is already possible under that system for agencies to be sharing that information but they are not doing so, the question is: why are they not doing so? This partly probably slips back to something we were talking about earlier: the training and their actually understanding rather better these issues of domestic abuse and the role the different agencies can play. So overhauling the system is particularly important.
I wanted to discuss Lords amendment 9, because  I have a question for the Government in relation to it. I recognise that in the private law family cases the judiciary and Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service have protocols. May I say to the Minister that from my experience of more than 20 years as a constituency MP, telling me that CAFCASS has an involvement in something does not necessarily fill me with reassurance? So I say to the Government that it is important to make sure that those protocols are sufficient and that they are doing the job that needs to be done. Speaking about child contact centres, may I simply say that I would like to thank everybody who has been involved in the Maidenhead child contact centre over the years? Sadly, it has taken the decision that it needs to close, but it has provided support to many, many families and children over the years, and I would like to thank those there for their work.
Finally, I wish to say that it is really important that we get this Bill on the statute book. We are running out of time. I know we can ping-pong and carry on until we actually get through it, but were we to run out of time and were it not to get on the statute book, that would be the biggest betrayal of victims.

Stuart McDonald: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this hugely important debate. First, let me echo what both the Minister and the shadow Minister said about His Royal Highness Prince Philip and about Dame Cheryl Gillan. We will very much miss what would typically have been a knowledgeable and passionate contribution from Dame Cheryl in this debate and in so many debates to come.
Although these Lords amendments cover many significant issues, I shall take only a short time to cover two, as the Bill almost exclusively extends to England and Wales and relates largely to devolved matters. The two excellent Lords amendments I wish to express Scottish National party support for are Lords amendments 40 and 41, which were drafted expressly with a broader scope, touch on a reserved matter—immigration—and have the potential to bring significant benefits to victims from across the UK if we support them today.
Lords amendment 40 would start to roll back the Home Office’s ever-extending network of data sharing agreements and its grab of sweeping exemptions to data protection laws—my party has repeatedly proposed this. These exemptions have contributed to a dangerous situation in which migrants feel unable or reluctant to access potentially vital public services for fear that any information they share will end up being used by the Home Office in a bid to remove them. Domestic abuse is one severe but perfect illustration of that point. Fleeing an abusive partner can of course put women at risk, and none of us would want them to fear seeking the protection and support that they need. The reality, however, is that too often they do, and one reason for that fear is precisely because they do not have faith that the information they are required to share will not result in an attempt to remove them or have other implications for their current and future status here.
That is what Lords amendment 40 effects, by requiring the Home Secretary to put in place
“arrangements to ensure that the personal data…processed for the purpose of”
securing that help and support “is not used” against victims for immigration purposes. We therefore give it our support. I listened to what the Minister said in response, but I do not understand how police guidance can provide any sort of comprehensive answer and I fear that the evidence shows that it will not. It does not provide the necessary or sufficient reassurance that a statutory provision can provide. It is that simple.
Lords amendment 41 is, as we heard, the new clause that would broaden the scope of the domestic violence rule and the concessions so that more victims of domestic abuse here can find safety, knowing that they also have a pathway to leave to remain and do not need endure destitution and homelessness while they pursue it. Now, those possibilities are limited largely to those who are here on spouse visas.
The domestic violence rule and the concessions have been transformative for many victims of domestic abuse who are able to access them. The very same reasons for putting them in place for those on spouse visas clearly also apply to other victims of domestic abuse. If we do not completely break the link between a woman’s lawful residence here and her relationship with an abusive partner, far from helping her, we are hindering her ability to find help and support—we hand power to the abuser. No one wants that but, unless we support the new clause, I fear that is the position that we will risk remaining in.
Again, I do not understand the Government’s answers in response, in particular what was said about the Lords amendment not being true to the original purpose of the rule and the concessions. On the contrary, it is about applying the same purpose, intention and reasoning to a broader group of victims who equally require support and protection, ensuring that they may access them.
In relation to another Government response, the Lord Bishop of Gloucester explained in the other place why the Government’s support for migrant victims, while welcome, is not a comprehensive answer, as the shadow Minister said today. We need bolder action as a matter of urgency. There is already an abundance of evidence that the changes proposed by way of Lords amendment 41 are utterly necessary and could transform lives.
The Government also seem to object that the leave proposed might ultimately be indefinite leave. If they find that objectionable—I do not understand the reasons why they might—rather than reject the amendment outright, they should at least provide for a decent period of time unencumbered by restrictions, including on public funds, to allow victims to get the support that they need and to get their lives back on track.
In a letter to MPs this morning, Ministers argued that migrant victims are not a homogeneous group, and that argument has been repeated this afternoon, but we know that—those advocating Lords amendment 41 know it better than anyone—and supporters of the amendment are not treating them as such. Rather, we would create a space in which complex and diverse needs can be better understood and addressed and where victims are free of the incredibly intimidating coercion and control that precarious immigration status can cause a victim. The Government risk denying victims that space and the possibility of addressing their diverse needs.
In conclusion, the focus should not be on the nature of victims’ immigration status or the type of visa that they hold; it should be on their needs as victims. Despite the Government’s protestations to the contrary, Lords amendment 41 would be another step towards ensuring that that happens. The question for this House is: what is more important, protecting and supporting victims, or protecting Home Office powers over migration? We say, support the victims, and we therefore give our full support to the Lords amendments.

Yvette Cooper: I join in the tributes to Cheryl Gillan, whom we all miss badly from this House and from debates such as this one in which she has been a participant for so many years.
I welcome the progress made on the Bill with the work done in the House of Lords. It is an important Bill and I commend the work on it of the Minister, the Opposition Front Benchers and all those in the Lords who sought to improve and build on it, because it got better as a result of all that work along the way. We have seen, for example, the addition of references to children as part of the Bill—something that our Home Affairs Committee recommended some years ago—and the amendments to reflect the issues raised earlier in our Commons debates about making non-fatal strangulation an offence.
I want to focus in particular on two areas where the Lords have proposed amendments that the Government are still resisting. The first is to support points made by other Members about the need to make sure that migrant women are not deterred from coming forward to get help when they desperately need it. These can be some of the most vulnerable women of all, threatened by perpetrators with losing their immigration status. Effectively, what the perpetrators are doing is exploiting the immigration system to exert coercive control over vulnerable women. We have a responsibility to make sure that that cannot happen, but, again, the Government are not going far enough in that regard.
The second area that I want to address is in relation to Lords amendment 42, which was put forward by Baroness Royall with support from across the Lords, including from Baroness Newlove. It is similar to an amendment that I put forward at an earlier stage in the Bill’s consideration, which the Government did say they would consider, because they recognised the importance of the issue. It builds on the work that Laura Richards at Paladin has done and has the support of hundreds of thousands of people who have signed petitions for stronger action against repeat perpetrators of domestic abuse and stalking.
We know that there are too many cases of awful crimes against women—serious domestic abuse, awful violence, horrendous stalking, murder, and lives that are lost as a result of terrible crimes—and yet the perpetrator has committed crimes before. They may have been involved in other stalking offences, harassment, repeated domestic abuse or violence. They move from one victim to another and sometimes from one town or region to another. They find someone new to control and to abuse and someone else whose lives they can destroy. Too often, when those previous crimes emerge, everyone sighs in sadness, everyone wishes that the signs had been picked up earlier, everyone says that the dots should have been joined, and everyone says  that lessons should be learned, but in the end they never are and not enough changes. We cannot carry on like this.
Hollie Gazzard was stalked and murdered by a man who was involved in 24 previous violent offences, including 12 on an ex-partner. Even though he had been reported to the police many times, there was no proactive risk assessment, and there was no management despite his previous violent offences. Linzi Ashton was raped, strangled and murdered by a man who had strangled two previous partners, but his repeat pattern of abuse towards women was not picked up. Jane Clough, an A&E nurse, was stalked and then murdered by a violent ex-partner, even though he had a history of abusing other women. He was not on the high-risk offenders register and the police were not monitoring him.
There are so many cases. Shana Grice was stalked and murdered in 2016. The man who killed her had abused 13 girls before, yet there was still no focus on him as a perpetrator, and no intelligence or information sharing. Faced with these cases, where perpetrators have repeated convictions for domestic abuse or for stalking, why on earth are their names not on the high-risk offenders register? Why on earth is there not a process to identify or manage these high-risk individuals? Why on earth do the police not take these cases seriously, because it is not happening? That is what Lords amendment 42 is all about. It adds convicted serial domestic abusers and stalkers to the high-risk offenders register so that police and specialist agencies can work together to prevent them from offending again and to use the multi-agency public protection arrangements to keep more women safe.
We know that, when it comes to domestic abuse, stalking, or violence against women, the most serious offenders are those repeat offenders. That is where we should be trying to focus more of our efforts.
Let me consider the Government’s objections. The Minister says that they will draw up a perpetrators strategy, which was part of Lords amendment 42. That is strongly welcome, but the Government are not going far enough with their plans for that strategy. For example, the strategy currently does not include stalking, which it needs to do, and it is not a replacement for the high risk register and the proper monitoring and interventions underpinned by statute that we need.
The Minister has said that a new category 4 is not needed on the high-risk offenders register—a new category from MAPPA—because these dangerous people can be included in category 3. The trouble is that just because in theory some of them can be does not mean that most of them are. The system is not working; simply adding a bit more guidance, a bit more urging and a bit more soul searching will not mean they are included in practice either.
Category 3 has historically been interpreted very narrowly and is interpreted by gatekeepers—people who are concerned about stretched resources and will continue to be so. At the moment, what that means in practice is that police, probation officers and other agencies involved in the system are simply not treating repeat perpetrators —those with repeat domestic abuse convictions—as high- risk offenders, yet they are high risk. Someone who has already been convicted of domestic abuse against a series of different women is a risk to other women and needs to be properly assessed, yet at the moment the  system does not assess them as high risk. That is what we are trying to fundamentally change through legislation, to send a strong signal through the system—to police officers, specialist agencies and probation services across the country—that these cases are high risk and put other women at risk in future. They need to be properly assessed and managed to keep other women safe.
The Government have said that that would introduce complexity without compensatory benefits. The compensatory benefit would be to include more people in the system who are high risk to future victims. That is the benefit, and it would be hugely important. Nor do I accept that the proposal would add complexity. It would undoubtedly add to the number of people who would need to be assessed, because we know that some of these people are not being assessed when they should be, but it would not add complexity. In fact, there would be a clear and simple process that recognises that this group of people needs to be assessed and recognised for the risks that they pose.
I fear that part of the difference between us is about resources and the number of people who would need to be assessed, because the undoubted impact of this measure would be to require additional people—those who pose the highest risk, the repeat domestic abuse and stalking cases—to be assessed, on the register and properly managed. My fear is that some of the resistance from within the Home Office comes from a fear of needing to provide the additional resources. I therefore ask the Minister to look again at this and at the importance of recognising that we need to expand the system to keep more women safe.
Let us remember that statistic we all use. We all talk about two women a week who are killed by a partner or an ex as a result of domestic abuse. It is still two women a week. When the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and I were first debating issues around domestic abuse almost 10 years ago, we were talking about the two women a week whose lives were lost; it is still two women a week whose lives are lost. Those are the women we should be trying to help, and that is what amendment 42 does. If two people a week were losing their lives at football matches as a result of the violent behaviour of a small number of hooligans or violent perpetrators, you could bet we would focus on those perpetrators and the action needed to target those violent offenders. We have to do the same for women’s lives and not think it is too complex or difficult to get the system to work and focus on high-risk offenders.
That is why I urge the Government to think again, change their position and support amendment 42. It is not enough to say that it is possible under the existing system to take action against dangerous perpetrators. It is not about what is possible; we need to ensure that it happens in practice. Our responsibility is to ensure that the action to keep women safe takes place. That is why we need amendment 42.
I urge the Minister to listen to the words of the father of Jane Clough, John Clough, who has said:
“It’s way past time serial abusers and stalkers were treated with the same gravitas as sex offenders and managed in a similar fashion”.
We do not have to be passive in the face of the escalating violence of a small number of dangerous offenders. We do not have to just allow these violent criminals to keep reoffending in perpetuity. After the awful murders of Sarah Everard, Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry, the Government rightly said they would redouble their action on violence against women, so I urge them to do so. Amendment 42 gives them the possibility to do so. I hope the Minister will think again and support amendment 42 now.

Eleanor Laing: We now go to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Justice, Sir Robert Neill.

Bob Neill: It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate because this is a very important Bill, it is a good Bill and it significantly improves the law in a number of respects. A number of the amendments made in the other place improve the Bill, too.
I am particularly pleased to see the creation of the offence of non-fatal strangulation. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, I practised in the criminal courts for some 25 years before coming into this place. There was a gap in the law here. Evidentially it was often very difficult to fit that course of conduct into the existing offence under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 to reflect the gravity of it—the lower offence under section 20 often would not give adequate sentencing powers. Equally it was often difficult to demonstrate that the elements of attempted murder were made out—often it would not be possible to prove that was the case—in the light of what had happened. So the creation of a specific offence to deal with a type of behaviour that is particularly pernicious in abusive relationships—I certainly came across it in my career, as I am sure have many others in this House—is particularly valuable and welcome. I know it is welcomed by practitioners and by judges in these cases, because it now gives us a means of capturing the whole of the conduct that can happen in these types of relationship. So that is very welcome.
I welcome, too, what the Minister said about revenge porn. The Law Commission’s work is very valuable in this field, but the Government’s commitment to moving swiftly on this is important too, because it is critical that offences are kept up to date with the changing technologies and use of social media in society. So these are very good aspects of the Bill, in addition to the others that have already been mentioned.
I want to talk briefly about three Lords amendments that the Government are right to resist, although I understand and support, as will most Members, the sentiments behind them. The first is Lords amendment 33, which relates to judicial training. The Minister’s comments on this are right. It is absolutely right that there must be training. A great deal is being done now to improve awareness by judges and sentencers—both judges and magistrates, because we must remember many of these cases will be tried by lay magistrates as well as by professional judges. It is absolutely right that there is up-to-date and comprehensive training in this regard. The Judicial College has done a great deal of work now. As Baroness Butler-Sloss—a former president of the family division and one of the most experienced family judges we have in this country, although she is now  retired—pointed out, that has been incorporated specifically both into the initial training and the refresher training that is required for judges and magistrates. The Justice Committee in previous reports in relation to the role of the magistracy has urged that there be a more comprehensive training programme. It is important that the Minister ensures that the Ministry of Justice makes the funding available for those training programmes, whether residential or day courses, to be systematically and comprehensively delivered across the country, and that all magistrates and judges have access to them in a timely fashion.
However, I do not think we need primary legislation to do that. We certainly should have a practical strategy, but I do not think it is right that that should lie in the hands of the Secretary of State. If I can draw an analogy, later in the proceedings, there is a Government amendment in lieu setting out a strategy for the prosecution of offenders. I think that is properly a strategy that can be owned by Ministers because it relates to what is done by the Executive arms of state such as the prosecution. That is different from what is done by the judicial arm of the state. It does not seem constitutionally proper, despite the good intentions behind the amendment, to enable any Secretary of State to have power to dictate to the independent judiciary how they should set about their training programmes and what they should contain. That is a discrete but significant flaw in the amendment, which is why the House would be right to resist it. The objective can be achieved but without trespassing over the constitutional division between Executive, legislature and judiciary that unfortunately is the inevitable and logical consequence of the amendment. It puts the power in a Minister’s hands when in fact there is a clear willingness by the judiciary to seize the nettle themselves on this. We shall make sure that they have the resources to enable them to seize that nettle, but we should not be dictating to them as to how they do it. That is why the Government are right to resist the amendment.
Lords amendments 37 and 38 relate to reasonable force as a defence and a further statutory offence in domestic abuse cases. Again, the intention is entirely laudable but, certainly in my experience, it is not necessary to put this into primary legislation. For example, the circumstances that are set out in the two amendments and in the lengthy schedule—I think that is Lords amendment 83, which is attached to one of those— relate to offences where it is already possible under existing criminal law for a defendant to raise the full defence of self-defence, which once raised must then be rebutted by the prosecution, or a partial defence—for example, an offence of duress, which can, under certain circumstances, either be a complete defence to an offence or reduce murder down to manslaughter. Those are already available.
Since the decision in the Challen case—a case that came too late in terms of justice to the individual concerned but which has now set the law on a much better and more up-to-date footing—there is a recognition that the course of conduct of coercive control can be regarded as a factor that raises the defence of duress in the appropriate case. Therefore, the means of a victim of domestic abuse to bring that before the court is already available and it does not seem necessary to add these clauses to the Bill. It might actually have the effect of limiting, unintentionally, the scope of conduct that  can be captured and used by a defendant to assert that they were acting in self-defence.
The law of self-defence has changed. In fact, I was involved in one of the leading cases in the Court of Appeal, which rightly—albeit I was on the prosecution side—said that the law prior to the case of Bird back in the 1990s was too restrictive in what could be pleaded as self-defence. That is particularly important to a woman, and the defendant in that case was a female. The person she had assaulted in self-defence was, as it turned out, a man. That imbalance was not properly reflected in the law up until the Bird case, but it then was, and therefore the existing common law is on a much sounder footing to deal with this. Therefore, it is not necessary to go down the route set out in Lords amendment 38.
The defence of duress is, as I say, already available. Evidence that shows that the defendant had been a victim of domestic abuse is of itself already relevant and admissible to set up the defence of duress, in the same way as it is relevant and admissible where a defence of self-defence is pleaded. So we are in danger of over-engineering a solution that is already there and where the courts have shown themselves willing to reflect changes in social conditions and the pressures that exist.
Let me end my observations by stating that the attitude of the courts in relation to domestic abuse offences, and to sexual offences more generally as well, is sometimes criticised—sometimes rightly—but I have noticed that the judiciary’s approach has changed vastly over the years I have been involved in criminal law. There is now a much greater understanding of the power imbalance that often exists in relationships and that, very frequently, women are in the more vulnerable position. In both the investigation of offences and their handling in court, far greater sensitivity is now shown to victims and complainants in such cases, and absolutely rightly so.
It seems to me that the law is able to deal with these matters without the need for further primary legislation. The sentiments behind the three Lords amendments I have spoken about are entirely laudable, but they can be picked up and captured elsewhere. For those reasons, it is proper for the Government to resist them.

Gill Furniss: I express my commiserations to the Queen, the royal family and, of course, the family of our very own Dame Cheryl Gillan.
I really welcome the Bill: it is a huge step in the right direction to better support victims of domestic abuse, and I thank all those who have worked so hard to make sure that it has come forward. However, in passing this legislation we must ensure that someone’s migrant status does not prevent them from getting the support that they need.
One of the greatest challenges in tackling the abhorrent crime of domestic abuse is the fact that all too often incidents go unreported. The problem is further exacerbated if victims are afraid to come forward because they fear that doing so could lead to their deportation. For example, there is a risk that people will be afraid to report their abuse if their right to be in the UK is  dependent on their staying with their spouse. Everyone, no matter their migration status, deserves equal protection under the law.
Lords amendment 40, on data sharing for immigration purposes, is therefore a huge opportunity to reassure victims and witnesses that the details they share with the police and other agencies will not be used for any immigration-control purposes. This will give them the confidence to come forward and report this often-hidden crime.
Let me turn to Lords amendment 41, on leave to remain and the destitution domestic violence concession. The long, arduous process of reporting domestic abuse and then through to eventual conviction is immensely taxing for all victims. The stress caused is unmanageable if victims are having to secure their right to remain in the UK at the same time.
The situation is made worse by the policies that limit access to some key services for those subject to immigration control. Lords amendment 41 will enshrine into law the right of victims of domestic abuse to have a route towards being granted indefinite leave to remain. Importantly, it will also guarantee their right to access services that could provide a vital lifeline. It could save lives.
In building a global Britain, we must stand shoulder to shoulder with all victims of domestic abuse, no matter their country of origin. Not only do we have a moral responsibility to enact the changes in the Lords amendments but, as signatories to the Istanbul convention on preventing violence against women and girls, we have an international responsibility, too.
One of the remaining hurdles in the way of full implementation of the convention is equal protection on the grounds of migrant or refugee status. Eight years on from the UK having become a signatory, it is a national embarrassment that the Government have repeatedly dithered and delayed its implementation. Lords amendments 40 and 41 will remove the stumbling block and pave the way towards Britain fulfilling its international and moral obligations.
Domestic abuse has existed in the shadows for far too long. This legislation goes a significant way towards protecting victims, and I hope Members will support Lords amendments 40 and 41 to ensure that its protections are available to all.

Ruth Edwards: I am delighted to speak in this debate. Some excellent additions have been made to what was already a very strong Bill. In particular, I am delighted to speak to Lords amendment 35, which makes threatening to share sexual photographs or videos of someone without their consent an offence punishable by up to two years in prison.
Let me put on the record my thanks to both Bill Ministers, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk). I know that they have long supported these measures and worked hard to include them in the Bill, and they have put up with my badgering them on this issue with good grace. I also thank Baroness  Morgan of Cotes, whose expert—and indeed noble—badgering was successful in getting the amendment over the line in the other place.
Most of all, however, I thank my constituent Natasha Saunders. I should say “my former constituent” because I have lost her to my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin)—although she assures me that that is no reflection on her former Member of Parliament. Brave women such as Natasha, and brave men, have stood up and told their stories. It is one thing to campaign for changes to the law; it is much harder for someone to speak publicly about the darkest moments—the most personal and private moments—of their life.
When we last debated the Bill in this House, I shared some of Natasha’s story. She said, in her own words:
“The threat of those photos being shared was my worst nightmare—I had no choice but to comply with his continued abuse or face potential humiliation… The threat was always there and as the years went on, it was like I ceased to exist. He made me feel invisible to everyone and if I displeased him in any way, I knew he could use those pictures to ruin my reputation.”
Natasha has been working with Refuge. I thank it, too, for its excellent research on this issue, which gave us the evidence base we needed. Refuge’s “The Naked Threat” report found that one in 14 people in England and Wales, and one in seven young women, has been a victim of threats to share. Almost four in five women changed the way they behaved as a result of the threats, proving how much this law is needed.
Threatening to expose someone at their most vulnerable because they have done or want to do something you do not like is a deeply sinister crime. It has already resulted in tragedy, and I know it has contributed to trapping people in dangerous, abusive relationships. Now survivors will have a route to justice.
I am proud to vote for Lords amendment 35. I am even prouder of Natasha. She has decided to start on the journey from campaigner to Member of Parliament, to do more to protect others from the horror she suffered, and I very much hope that she will join us on the iconic green Benches before long.

Christine Jardine: First, may I associate myself with the remarks of the Minister and the tributes to both His Royal Highness Prince Philip and Dame Cheryl Gillan?
It is, as others have said, a privilege to take part in this debate. When the Bill was first introduced, we were already aware of the need for protection for so many in our society. Roughly 2 million people a year in the UK, most of them women, are subject to some form of domestic abuse. In the subsequent debates, we have heard some incredibly brave and moving stories.
Throughout the covid-19 crisis, we have seen domestic abuse figures increase exponentially. In the past month, we have become, if anything, even more aware of the need for this landmark legislation. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) expressed, it is our duty here to reflect the demand for change that we have seen and heard from so many in our society.
The Bill has certainly changed and developed over the past four years. It has been supported and shaped positively from both sides of the Chamber, and I believe it has become stronger as a result. We have made   progress and strengthened the Bill in areas such as including children in the definition, introducing protections for survivors of abuse in court, and taking our first steps towards making misogyny a hate crime.
However, the Bill could still be stronger. There are important, significant areas in which there is more work that we need to do. They include migrant women, who should have the same consideration as every other woman in our society. Getting out of a violent or abusive situation should not be dependent on where someone comes from. For me, this is a critical point. As has already been mentioned, this country has signed the Istanbul convention, but the Government have yet to ratify it. Under that convention, a person could not be denied support on the basis of their immigration status.
There is a specific amendment that I would ask the Government to reconsider: Lords amendment 42, on monitoring serious and serial perpetrators of domestic abuse and stalking. In the other place, my colleague Baroness Brinton spoke powerfully from her own awful experience about the clear need to strengthen MAPPA and introduce a register for serious and serial perpetrators of domestic abuse and stalking. That is why Lords amendment 42 is so important, and we should oppose the Government’s attempt to replace it with a much weaker amendment.
Tackling domestic abuse must include ensuring that the criminal justice system deals with obsessed serial perpetrators properly. I appreciate the Minister’s explanation, and the fact that she sympathises with the objective of the Lords amendment, but I cannot agree that there are not sufficient benefits to justify complications. There is no complication I can see that is ever too great to justify not increasing protection for any of us at any time from anyone. We have already heard numerous moving examples today of the damage done to lives by repeat offenders, and Liberal Democrats do not believe that the Government’s amendment in lieu goes far enough. We will therefore not support it.
This Bill speaks to a problem that infects our society and threatens people, mostly women, in every part of the country every day of the year. We are sending a message today from this place. Let us make it the strongest it can possibly be, so that when the Bill reaches the statute book, this landmark legislation is the strongest it can possibly be.

Saqib Bhatti: I am privileged to speak in this debate today, and I would like to start by joining in the tribute to Dame Cheryl Gillan. She was an incredibly kind individual and she will be sorely missed in the House.
This really is a landmark piece of legislation. It shows what the House is truly capable of when it works together, and I commend all those who have been involved in bringing the Bill to where it is.
Over the past year, we have experienced life in a very different way, often not being able to leave our homes. For most of us it has been incredibly difficult, but for victims of domestic abuse the reality has been much harsher. Over the past year, victims of domestic abuse have often found themselves trapped by their abuser without any space, physical or emotional, between them. There has been a worrying increase in the demand for domestic abuse support, and this has been seen across   the country. In fact, just last night I was contacted about someone who is a victim of domestic abuse and who needs my support. This just happens way too often.
There are two parts of the Bill to which I will refer today: Lords amendment 42 and the now-included provision in Lords amendment 35 on the threat to disclose intimate images. On the latter, I will say this. In 2015, we recognised the manipulative and psychological power that abusers had over victims when laws were introduced in relation to revenge porn, and we have seen more than 900 abusers convicted as a result. I am relieved to see that the threat to disclose intimate images is now being addressed in this legislation, because the harm caused by these threats is immeasurable and can have an extremely deep and lasting psychological impact on the victims. It is a sinister and cowardly crime.
I have heard anecdotal stories of communities in which honour plays a big role, and where abusive husbands have threatened to disclose intimate images of their wives or partners in an attempt to dishonour them in order to coercively control and manipulate them. I hope that the Bill will go a long way towards letting those women know that this is not okay and that they are not alone. I thank Baroness Morgan for all the hard work she has done in getting this legislation amended. I also believe that social media companies need to play their part in fulfilling their responsibility to take down any distressing or manipulative images that may be classed as revenge porn—and swiftly, so that victims are protected.
I empathise with the intention and spirit of Lords amendment 42. However, I accept the Government’s position on this. There is, of course, still more that can be done through existing systems and better use of the MAPPA framework. As long as that is possible, the objective is the same, and if a way forward can be found through non-legislative means, that is certainly worth exploring. Of course, as has been said, domestic abuse does not just end when two partners—two individuals—stop living with each other.
By improving MAPPA, by improving the information-sharing processes with different agencies and individuals, the message to those who commit these cowardly acts of violence, stalking or domestic abuse is very clear: through this legislation, this Government and this House are determined that you will feel the full force of the law. We will come for you and we will not let you get away with it. And for the victims of these heinous crimes, the message is simple: you are not alone and we will not let you suffer alone.

Stella Creasy: May I associate myself with the comments today about the Duke of Edinburgh and Dame Cheryl Gillan?
If we want to tackle violence against women, we need to change the conversation. We need to stop asking how we keep women safe and start asking how we stop the violence. I pay tribute to the many organisations and many Members across the House who have devoted time, effort and energy to the Bill and to that conversation—SafeLives, Refuge, Women’s Aid, Southall Black Sisters, Laura Richards, to name but a few of the many. The bitter reality is that whatever political perspective we come from, we have all known, in the many years that we have worked on this legislation, that it is a once- in-a-lifetime opportunity, because the conversation has  all too often been about how women should keep  themselves safe, rather than our responsibility to free them from harm.
I welcome the Government’s agreement to many changes to this legislation along its journey—just today, we are discussing their acceptance of Lord Kennedy’s amendment to stop doctors charging domestic abuse victims for medical evidence, for example. This also includes the changes on revenge porn, treating crimes that are motivated by misogyny as hate crime and ensuring that the police act to record how hostility towards someone’s sex or gender means that women are targeted for assault, abuse and harassment. However, in the time I have today, I want to urge the Minister to go further and drop the Government’s opposition to amendments where we ask a victim to fit a particular box rather than recognising that they all need our assistance to stop the violence.
Lords amendments 1 to 3 recognise the abuse of disabled people by paid or unpaid carers. Disabled women are twice as likely as their non-disabled counterparts to experience abuse, so we seek to support our disabled sisters from those who are their intimate contacts—people we trust to undertake some of the most sensitive acts, whether that is personal care, or emotional or financial matters. The Minister says that she cannot accept these amendments because giving those who are abused by their carers the protection of the Bill would change the common law understanding of domestic abuse and somehow dilute the purpose of the legislation, but the amendment is exactly about changing our understanding of abuse, where it happens and who suffers from it. This abuse takes place in a domestic setting and it is the result of an intimate relationship. For too long, those affected have been telling us about reviewing their evidence, how somehow they have to prove their case and why they cannot keep themselves safe through existing legislation. If we want to stop violence and abuse, we need to act and change how we think about domestic abuse accordingly. That is what Lords amendments 1  to 3 do.
Many have already spoken about Lords amendment 41, because that ensures that we give migrant victims of abuse the help that they need to leave abusive relationships, whatever their status. Without it, the Government are asking us to make a decision on whether to keep a victim of violence safe not on whether she is at risk, but on whether she has the right stamp in her passport. There is a speech for another day about the dysfunctionalities of the UK Border Agency and its ability to manage our immigration service, but it is a simple matter of fact that many victims of domestic abuse cover the cost of getting support, help and access to a refuge through their ability to access public assistance. When we deny women access to that assistance due to their immigration status, we consign them to having no way out of harm. Indeed, as Refuge pointed out, the number of survivors of abuse with no recourse to public funds is likely to increase post-Brexit under our new immigration proposals, so the need to address this will become even more pressing.
The Minister said that migrant victims should be seen as victims first, yet as she can see from the super-complaint and the evidence that it reveals, the reality is  that they are all too often treated as potential criminals first and foremost when they come forward. We need to not only safeguard them from having their data shared but give them protection from being exploited full stop, and that is what Lords amendment 41 does. There are contradictions already exposed in this debate. The Minister says in one breath that the key consideration for migrant victims is not their immigration status and then says that victims of domestic violence should not have an automatic right to status in the UK. She says she needs more information and claims that the amendments are unnecessary as a result because she is reviewing the matter. I tell her, as somebody who has had to deal with these cases in my constituency and who is a big fan of the work that Southall Black Sisters does, that we do not need more reviews and more evidence, because the evidence is painfully already there.
The Minister says there is support, but we know that in 2019, for example, four in five migrant women were turned away from refuges due to their “no recourse to public funds” status. We have seen at first hand the women kept in violent relationships because of their immigration status. We have given testimony of the culture of fear they experience—fear of not only their abuser but the officials who are supposedly there to help them.
I also say, as a former member of the Council of Europe who had the privilege to serve on it alongside Dame Cheryl Gillan and learn from her in that institution, that we cannot ratify the Istanbul convention while we try to draw a distinction between women in the help they can access. Ministers told us that women in Northern Ireland were not treated differently when it came to their reproductive rights, and quite rightly, the Council of Europe told them otherwise. It is the same when it comes to drawing a distinction between migrant women and whether they can access support for being victims of domestic abuse. It is long overdue that we ratify the Istanbul convention. We cannot let this prevent us from being able to do that. We are one of the few countries left in Europe that has yet to ratify the convention, and I ask the Minister to talk to her counterparts in Europe, and to recognise how this will be a barrier to doing that and will leave women at risk in our communities.
Finally, I turn to Lords amendment 42, another matter on which there is much agreement in the House that we need to act. It is the best example among the amendments of how we can change the conversation and stop the violence caused by serial perpetrators and stalkers. The Minister tells us that the amendment is not needed, that it is not about the category of an offender but how MAPPA processes work, and that her proposals for reform will address that. I understand the point that she is making, and I can see that there is some truth in her argument about how services need to work together, because the evidence shows time and again that serial offenders and serial stalkers were left to target women without intervention. For years, women have lived in fear and begged for help from the police to protect them, only to be told that they were being overdramatic. That is not me being overdramatic. Research shows how the constant dismissing and downplaying of stalking’s serious nature means that, on average, victims of the crime do not report to the police until the 100th incident.
Shana Grice was fined for wasting police time before she was murdered by her stalker—a man who had been reported by 13 other women for stalking. Alice Ruggles  was murdered by her ex-partner in 2016. The court heard how a restraining order had been taken out by an ex-girlfriend of his just three years earlier, but at the point at which Alice was begging the police for help, Northumbria police had no knowledge of that. Janet Scott, Pearl Black, Linah Keza, Maria Stubbings, Kerri McAuley, Molly McLaren, Hollie Gazzard, Justene Reece, Kirsty Treloar, Jane Clough, Linzi Ashton—all those cases involved serial perpetrators who had been violent and abusive to other women before they were attacked. No one joined the dots. No one asked whether they were at risk and acted. These women were sitting ducks. That is the system that the Minister is defending today.
The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) says that putting someone’s name on a list does not make a difference. Frankly, I disagree. It means that we can finally hold the police, not the victims, to account, because they would have direct accountability for the management of their behaviour. It makes stalking something that the police have to recognise in its own right as something they need to stop, rather than something that women have to prove and manage. I pay tribute  to the work that Laura Richards has done tirelessly to expose the situation and fight for these changes and to Baroness Royall, Baroness Newlove and Lord Russell for their work in the other place on this issue.
We know that this Bill has been a marathon, but we are asking the Minister to keep going that extra mile, to use this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, to stop trying to defend the indefensible and the status quo, to change the conversation so that we can stop the violence and not allow perpetrators of these crimes to use the loopholes—those that the amendments would close—to continue the abuse. The evidence base is already there. It just needs the political will to act. I say to the House that if the Minister will not listen, we must, and we must vote for the amendments.

Fay Jones: I join colleagues in their tributes to Dame Cheryl Gillan. I knew her for 20 years, from her role as shadow Secretary of State and later as Secretary of State for Wales. I am so very sorry she has gone; she would have made a fantastic speech today.
It was an honour to sit on the Domestic Abuse Bill Committee last year. I am extremely proud that we have managed to prioritise this vital piece of legislation at this time. It will empower victims, communities and professionals to confront and challenge domestic abuse, and above all to provide victims with the support they deserve.
I commend the Minister for her efforts in this area and the shadow Minister, who talked about the spirit with which this Bill was forged. She is absolutely right that it has been made stronger all the way along by Members on both sides of the House, and I very much welcome that. I welcome the Government’s support for some of the amendments that were laid in the other place. They will create a standalone offence of non-fatal strangulation, extend the coercive and controlling behaviour offence to post-separation abuse and criminalise threats to share intimate images.
I also support the Government in opposing Lords amendment 41. I believe that, as worded, it could risk further exploitation of vulnerable individuals, as my  right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) pointed out. The Government have taken a significant step in supporting migrant victims today by announcing the scheme to be delivered by Southall Black Sisters. I met them when they gave evidence to the Bill Committee, and I am confident that they will be successful.
Much of what we will discuss this afternoon will be addressed later this year as the Government look at the violence against women and girls consultation. I commend the Government for acting fast and reopening that consultation in the wake of the horrific murder of Sarah Everard. It is extremely positive that so many more contributions were made to that consultation.
While I have the Minister’s ear, I want to press again the need to do something about cyber-flashing—spreading indecent images using mobile devices on an unsolicited basis. That happens often on public transport. I was once flashed by a man on a night out in Cardiff. I could have had him arrested, because doing it in person is a criminal offence, but if a person digitally exposes themselves unsolicited, it is currently not the same offence. That needs to change. No one should be made to feel alarmed, distressed or intimidated as a result of being sent an unsolicited explicit photo. With so many more of our young people living their lives online with their own mobile phones, we need to put a stop to cyber-flashing.
I briefly want to mention the case of Ruth Dodsworth. For those of us in Wales, she is a very familiar face. She is a TV and weather presenter on ITV Wales. Yesterday, her ex-husband was jailed for three years after making her life a misery for nine long years. He was verbally abusive and physically violent. He followed her to work, put a tracker on her car, and even used her fingerprints to open her phone while she was sleeping to read its contents. Every day, Ruth went to work and read the weather forecast in a sunny, positive manner, completely concealing the horror that she was facing at home. I raise that point not only to praise Ruth’s bravery and incredible courage but to remind victims everywhere that they do not have to put a smile on their face, pretend they are okay and get on with it. The police and the criminal justice system are there to support them when they come forward. Ruth’s case shows that this is not something that is happening in the shadows to women we do not know. We all know a victim of domestic abuse, whether we know it or not. This Bill is landmark legislation that will go a significant way to protecting the estimated 2.4 million victims of domestic abuse each year. I wish it swift passage through these Houses.
Before I close, I want to single out the work that has been going on in my local area in Powys. I particularly applaud Powys County Council’s children’s services. Recently, I met its head of service, Jan Coles, and she talked me through the outstanding work it has been doing to support children victims of domestic abuse. That work has obviously been made so much more difficult during the recent pandemic, and I want to put on the record my thanks for what it has done. Powys was one of the first local authorities to quickly get vulnerable children into school hubs at the same time as key worker children, and I commend the council for that effort.
Finally, I thank all the brave survivors and tireless organisations who have given evidence during the passage of the Bill. This Bill is stronger because of them. I give it my full support, and I am proud to have played a very small part in it.

Laura Farris: I would also like to pay tribute to the great Cheryl Gillan, an inspirational and supportive colleague whose presence is felt very strongly on this side of the House. The Bill returns to us in different and better shape from how it left us. The amendments do not just add content, but expand the framework through which domestic abuse in all its insidious complexity is understood. It is something that may well outlive the relationship. I have seen through work I have done with a particular constituent of mine that coercive or controlling behaviour can live long after the couple have stopped living under the same roof.
The Bill recognises that the threat of certain forms of abuse can be as pernicious as the act itself. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) for the beautiful way she expressed the shame and humiliation that lies at the heart of revenge porn, which is an offence irrespective of whether the threat is actually carried out. The amendments provide protection against sexual violence that does not depend on any particular relationship status. The measures on revenge porn and non-fatal strangulation and the prohibition on the rough sex defence are all examples of that, and I pay tribute to Baroness Newlove for succeeding where we failed.
The Bill has evolved in part into a very significant body of law on sexual violence. It says to women, “It doesn’t matter if he is your husband or just someone that you met on Tinder. If he tries to choke you, that is a crime. If he tries to silence you by saying that he will share images of you online, that is a crime. If he hurts you, whether through choking or anything else, and says that you were up for it, that will not work; it is a crime.”
This Bill comes at a very important moment in a national conversation we are having. We know such things are happening because of the countless women who have submitted their stories to the campaign group We Can’t Consent To This in the past 18 months, detailing terrifying sexual violence in intimate encounters, and the more than 14,000 young women who have submitted anonymous testimonies on “Everyone’s Invited”, in particular describing the sharing of online images. Then there are the 40% of young women who told the BBC in 2019 that they had experienced unwanted strangulation. What we have heard time and time again is that they just thought it was normal. They did not think that they could report it. For now, these changes meet that challenge and give women a route to justice in respect of these crimes.
I want to speak briefly on judicial training. I start by reminding the House of what the Court of Appeal said about that in an appeal it heard on domestic abuse about a fortnight ago. It said that while domestic abuses are often not “crystal clear”, where there is detailed guidance on judicial training, the number of appeals tends to be smaller.
I would like to talk about judicial training in the context of non-fatal strangulation, which is something I have raised with Lord Wolfson. Subsection (2) of clause 72  says that the offence is initiated by consent. I understand as a matter of law and principle why that is, but we need to be realistic about what the offence looks like. First, we know that it is occurring frequently, and we know that it occupies a sprawling kind of grey area. As the Centre for Women’s Justice put it, there is
“growing pressure on young women to consent to violent, dangerous and demeaning acts”,
such as strangulation, most likely
“due to the widespread availability…and use of extreme pornography.”
Without proper training from the Judicial College, it is easy to see how the defence could be used to lead to an acquittal.
Very often, perhaps always, the victim will have consented to sex in the first place. She may on a previous occasion have consented to strangulation or something like it under duress or a desire to please, and by the time she reports it to the police, she may not have very strong evidence of physical injury. We know from precedent, such as the Samuel Price case in 2015 on very similar facts, that her history will be used against her in evidence and will be relevant. Judicial training is imperative so that a case founded on these facts is not destined to fail.

Debbie Abrahams: I would also like to associate myself with colleagues’ remarks about the sadness of the passing of His Royal Highness the Prince Philip, our dear colleague Dame Cheryl Gillan and of course Baroness Shirley Williams in the other place, and I send my sincere condolences to their families and friends.
I will be supporting the Lords amendments to this important Bill tonight. That we should need a Domestic Abuse Bill is a sad indictment of our society, but the facts speak for themselves. In England and Wales, two women a week will die at the hands of their partner, ex-partner or a family member. Yes, domestic abuse affects men as well, but most abuse is directed at women. Seventy-three years on from the commitment to universal human rights, which declared that
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”—
that women are equal to men—our fundamental rights to life are being denied by too many.
This violence against women and girls in a domestic or wider setting has context. For some, girl babies are seen as less important than boy babies, and daughters who are deemed to have shamed their families are punished, sometimes fatally. Too many still see their wives and daughters as chattels, and too many justify rape on how women dress. Our right to an education, to marry whom we wish, to work in whatever job we wish—limited only by our abilities, not by prejudice and discrimination—and to be paid equally for that work still elude us. If we want to stop violence against women, including in the home, we need a cultural change. Society needs to stop paying lip service to women’s rights and to treat women equally in every aspect of life, and this culture change requires leadership.
In addition to the cultural context, if we are going to try to prevent domestic abuse, we also need to recognise its drivers, including socioeconomic conditions. Yesterday, at the Work and Pensions Committee, we heard evidence that, although domestic abuse happens in all walks of   life, being under financial pressure is associated with an increased risk of abuse. Poverty cannot be decoupled from abuse; it is both a cause and a consequence.
The lack of provision in the Bill to address wider cultural issues and the socioeconomic context associated with abuse were discussed at a recent Oldham roundtable looking at the impacts of covid on domestic abuse over the last year. In addition to these gaps, I noted with some concern that the detection of abuse at community level did not translate into incidents reported to the police. Reflecting national patterns during the first lockdown in Oldham, the average number of cases at MARAC doubled every fortnight and the numbers of children on child protection plans following domestic abuse concerns increased by 41%, but this was not reflected in the numbers of domestic abuse incidents reported to the police, which has remained fairly static at about 400 a month. This obviously suggests that domestic abuse has been under-reported and that there is an increased problem of hidden abuse, as colleagues have been discussing as we have been going along.
The concerns raised in Oldham about the provisions in the Bill were particularly related to the issues, first, of victims with complex needs; secondly, of victims with no recourse to public funds; and finally, of the practical implementation of the Bill and its funding mechanisms. On victims with complex needs, including disabled people or people with a mental health condition, there were concerns, on top of the shortage of refuge places ordinarily, about the new duty to support a victim in safe accommodation and the availability of appropriately adapted or supported safe accommodation. Basically, there are not enough places. I would also like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and other colleagues who have been raising the disappointment regarding the Government’s position on abuse of disabled women by their carers and the lack of the support for the Lords amendments on this, which we think is very short-sighted.
I also echo colleagues’ remarks concerning the Lords amendments to address the lack of support for women with no recourse to public funds—predominantly but not exclusively migrant women. Currently, the destitution domestic violence concession scheme is a lengthy and bureaucratic process, leaving these women in limbo, often without access to the support they need, and we need to change that.
On the practicalities of implementing the Bill, there are concerns that the timescales for local authorities will be challenging in the context of an ongoing pandemic, particularly in regard to the requirements to have local strategies in place by August and to spend budget allocations by April 2022. Similarly, there is concern that funding will be skewed towards services around the narrowly defined duty for local authorities, at the expense of other essential support services, and that needs to be addressed. Given the timescales, local authorities will need to commit funding in advance of the strategic framework being ready, and they may not be able to spend the full allocation within this year. I hope that the Minister will also be able to address those remarks in her closing statement.
The Bill is a good move forward, but supporting the Lords amendments could make it even stronger, and I hope colleagues will support it.

Virginia Crosbie: I, too, would like to pay tribute to Dame Cheryl Gillan. She gave me and so many others much support and encouragement on our journeys to this place, and she is an inspiration to us all.
It is a privilege to speak in this important debate, and it was an honour to sit on the Domestic Abuse Bill Committee last year. I commend Ministers and Members on both sides of the House for the hard work behind the Bill. As we focus on the recent Lords amendments to the Bill, it is important that we remember that we are debating the finer detail of a Bill that will, as it already stands, deliver a radical change to the way that domestic abuse is defined and legislated against.
Not only does the Bill extend the definition of domestic abuse to include coercive and controlling behaviour, but it extends the definition of those who suffer to include children. For thousands of adults in the UK, the abuse they witnessed as a child will have had a profound and long-lasting effect. Many suffer deep trauma from the verbal, emotional and financial abuse they witnessed as children, which was perpetrated on and by the people they trusted to be their primary carers.
What we see and experience at an early age forms the basis of our future expectations, our own patterns of behaviour, and our health and wellbeing outcomes. It is devastating, therefore, to be exposed to any kind of abuse, including controlling and coercive behaviour, in our formative years. Studies have shown that children who witness domestic abuse often have the same poor life outcomes as those who are actually abused. They have the same likelihood of developing post-traumatic stress disorder as soldiers returning from war. They are also more likely to experience stress-related physical illnesses and mental health problems throughout their lives, and they are more likely to exhibit health-damaging behaviours such as smoking and drug-taking. Crucially, they are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide.
Charities such as Gorwel in my constituency see those issues time and time again. In addition to providing refuges and support for men and women who are direct victims of domestic abuse, it offers specialist provision for children and young people who are dealing with the effects of domestic abuse. However, it can only do so much. As a result of the Bill broadening the definition of domestic abuse, we can improve the lives of not just the children of today but the adults of tomorrow. That is why the Bill is so important and why I commend the hard work that has gone into ensuring that it is fit for purpose and serves the needs of the adults and children of the UK.

Beth Winter: The Domestic Abuse Bill provides an opportunity to deliver transformational change in tackling domestic abuse and violence, and many of the Lords amendments, which I wish to support today, strengthen it considerably.
Sadly, domestic abuse and violence remain endemic in this country, while unmet need remains a problem. Services have suffered under austerity, and one in six refuges in the UK have closed since 2010, while demand has increased, especially during the pandemic. Welsh Women’s Aid has shown that there has been a 32% increase in referrals to community-based support in the last year. Having worked in women’s refuges and with the  victims of domestic abuse, I have witnessed the devasting impact this has on people’s lives—on women of all ages and backgrounds, on their children, and on families, friends and communities. I have seen how severe funding constraints hamper the development of effective services. I pay tribute to the excellent work carried out by Women’s Aid in my constituency, despite these challenges.
I strongly support Lords amendment 40, which would allow immigrants without leave to remain in the UK to safely report domestic abuse without the threat of immigration control. This amendment is crucial in order to overcome the reluctance and fear that migrant women have to access services. I also support Lords amendment 41, which would grant these survivors temporary leave to remain and access to public funds while they flee abuse and resolve their immigration status, and Lords amendment 43, which would require that all victims of domestic abuse receive equally effective protection and support, regardless of their status, including migrants and groups sharing a protected characteristic status, such as older or younger victims, disabled people, ethnic minorities and LGBTQ victims. The provision is drafted in line with article 4(3) of the Istanbul convention, which the Government are committed to ratifying.
I am also pleased to support Lords amendments 47 and 48, which acknowledge the authority of the Senedd in Wales and prevent the Secretary of State from undermining the devolution agreements. I wish to make a further reference to the situation in Wales, as I feel Wales can be held up as a beacon of good practice. We already have the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015 in place, and it was accompanied by a national strategy in 2016. Together, they set out measures to improve prevention, protection and the provision of support, to tackle domestic abuse, taking a multi-agency and collaborative approach. So I respectfully suggest that yet again Wales is ahead of the game and England can learn from us. However, the good work already done is hampered by a decade of cuts from central Government. Women’s Aid estimates that £393 million is needed for domestic abuse services annually. We need secure, sustainable, long-term funding from central Government, and this includes reversing the 41% real-terms cut in legal aid expenditure on civil domestic violence cases since 2012. Therefore, alongside this Bill and these Lords amendments, I call for those resources to be made available, so that the effective protection and support is available to all victims of domestic abuse.

Maria Miller: May I again associate myself with the remarks about the passing of Prince Philip and of our wonderful colleague Cheryl Gillan?
This Bill was announced four years ago, and two generations later—sorry, two general elections later; it feels like two generations— we are on the cusp of it going on to the statute book. It is important to think about the time and the perspective, and to try to understand how the Bill’s evolution reflects the very much broader way society now understands the many forms of violence against women. Although I completely agree with the Minister that we cannot dilute the focus of this Bill from that specifically about domestic violence, and we  are right to resist Lords amendments 1 to 3 to expand the application of the Bill to include paid and unpaid carers, we need to acknowledge that the Bill is not the same as it started out and that that is because of how  we have seen and been appalled by the way in which violence affects women’s lives.
We have an opportunity in this Bill to ensure that women and girls know that they do not have to suffer abusive behaviour without having the support of the criminal justice system, but we also need the Government to make sure that there is consistency across all elements of Government policy in this respect; when it comes to schools, online and workplaces, we have to make sure that Government strategy reflects that there is no place anywhere in our society for abuse and violence against women. I hope that the Minister, whom I know feels this as strongly as I do, will make sure that this is reflected in the new strategy that she puts forward for the Government in the coming months, because at the moment there are inconsistencies there and that is confusing and undermining for women.
I welcome the approach that the Government and particularly the Minister have taken and the spirit of collaboration and co-operation across the House, which is important on an issue such as this. This Bill is not about what the Conservative or Labour party thinks; it is about what society thinks about women’s roles. That is hugely important when it comes to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said about how the Bill will only be of benefit if the police and judiciary put it into practice. In demonstrating that this is an issue that society feels strongly about and that transcends individual party interests, we demonstrate that what they have to embed, not just in their training systems but in their culture and ethos, is that violence against women is not acceptable in our society.
I commend the co-operative approach that the Government have taken, which I certainly saw when I chaired the Joint Committee scrutinising the Bill—which now feels like a lifetime ago. Indeed, the Government addressed almost all the Committee’s recommendations. In considering the more than 80 amendments today, we should not forget how far the Bill has taken us in making the culture change that we need to see, through establishing a commissioner, having the definition, stopping cross-examination by perpetrators and providing access to special measures. These things cannot be taken for granted, which is why we need to get the Bill on the statute book in its own right. We need those things to start to happen, rather than just continuing to talk about them. That is why I hope this is the last debate we have on the Bill.
I wish to speak in favour of two amendments that the Government are taking on board today. The first is Lords amendment 35, which concerns the disclosure of private intimate images. As other hon. and right hon. Members have said, it recognises a crime—the threat to publish private and intimate images—that has an appalling impact on those affected. I pay tribute to Refuge and its “The Naked Threat” campaign, but let us ponder what my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) said. She reminded us that one in seven women have experienced a threat to share an image in this way.
I fear that this will only become an increasing problem, because we have failed to tell young people that they should not share intimate images of themselves—that it is against the law and that they might never be able to  remove them from the internet for the rest of their lives. We have failed to tell them that. In speaking in support of Lords amendment 35, I also urge the Minister to ensure that we tell young people, in our newly mandatory sex and relationship education—which, after 20 years of debate, has been on the statute book effectively since last September—that they cannot share such images. It is against the law and is not a normal part of growing up. We have still not landed that message.
My hon. Friend’s constituent Natasha’s story was from an adult’s perspective, but there will be hundreds and thousands of young women, and men, listening to this debate who are also living in fear of intimate images being released that they know that others have. This is a ticking time bomb and something that I hope my hon. Friend on the Front Bench and other Ministers will address even more directly in the online harms Bill and in response to the Law Commission’s long overdue consultation on intimate image abuse, which will look not only at the publication of such images but at issues such as cyber-flashing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) mentioned.
The other amendment that I want briefly to speak in support of is Lords amendment 36, which concerns non-fatal strangulation. As Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee and the Joint Committee on the Bill, I have heard various evidence from young people under the age of 18 about how strangulation had become a routine part of their sexual experiences. I do not think we can overestimate the seriousness of this issue at all. I go back to my message to the Minister about telling young people that it is unlawful. Strangulation, simulated strangulation or semi-strangulation is not part of a normal loving relationship. If we do not tell young people that and they still have considerable access to extreme pornography, then we cannot expect anything to happen with regard to tackling the aggression rather than simply punishing the offenders.
The one hanging thread that remains from our Joint Committee inquiry into and scrutiny of the Bill is the individuals who have no recourse to public funds. That was not addressed at all when we scrutinised the Bill in Committee and it is, correctly, an issue we need to debate today. We need to get it right, and I just want to press the Minister a little further on it. No one wants to create a system that has the unintended consequence for migrant women of potentially putting them into a situation where they could be subject to further abuse as a result of the way our system of support works.
When we took evidence, the Joint Committee saw that there were very strong views on both sides on the support that would be in place for migrant women in particular. We took very strong evidence that said that a complete firewall was not always in the best interests of data and not always in the best interests of victims. We made a recommendation that there should be a much more robust Home Office policy on the use of firewalls and data in separating policy and practice with regard to support on immigration control.
The Minister has introduced a way forward on that with the pilot scheme she announced, the support for migrant victims scheme, but I feel we need more detail. We need to understand what will happen as a result of the pilot. Will £1.5 million be sufficient funding for the number of women who find themselves in a situation where they are suffering domestic abuse yet have no recourse to support? What metrics will be used to  determine whether the pilot has been successful? How will it be rolled out? It is there to find more information, because the Government felt there was insufficient evidence to shape a policy in this area, but we really need to see from the Government more details about how the scheme, when it ends in 12 months’ time, will be evaluated and then taken forward. We cannot allow ourselves to be continually in the situation where we do not know how to put in place a long-term scheme to support migrant women who find themselves in this situation. I hope the Minister might at least be able to indicate today when we can expect to get more information and more detail. Maybe she could provide a briefing to those of us who follow these issues very closely.
In conclusion, the Bill was framed as a gateway to the ratification of the Istanbul convention. That is important because, as one hon. Member mentioned, we need to get ratification of the Istanbul convention. I hope that once the Bill goes on to the statute book that is what will happen—again, maybe the Minister will want to comment on that. The Bill is another clear sign of the Government’s commitment to helping to tackle the culture of violence towards women in this country, but there is much more to do, especially in the online world, and we need to keep going with our efforts to stop violence against girls and women around the world. We need to make sure we keep our focus on this very significant issue. By having this debate in the House of Commons today, we are showing that abuse is no longer something that will be tolerated in this country and that there is no place for violence against women at all. With this Bill, we will be adding yet another important piece of legislation to the statute books to ensure that women are safer in their day-to-day lives in our country.

Alex Davies-Jones: I echo colleagues’ comments and put on the record that my thoughts are with the royal family and the friends and family of Dame Cheryl Gillan at this difficult time.
It is crystal clear that the Bill on the whole is extremely welcome. The strength of feeling across the country is that it has genuine potential to transform lives. It was a privilege to sit on the Bill Committee last year and I am proud of just how far the Bill in its current form has come.
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on perpetrators of domestic abuse, I welcome with open arms the Government’s recent short-term investments in perpetrator work. What remains crucial, however, is for the Government to publish a comprehensive perpetrator strategy that addresses all the gaps identified in the debate in the other place. That strategy must be driven by the data.
At the moment, with current practices, we have no real idea about the true extent of the number of women losing their lives at the hands of a known perpetrator. Lords amendment 42 is utterly crucial if we are to get a real assessment of the extent of the issue. By forcing the Government to provide a comprehensive perpetrator strategy for domestic abusers and stalkers within one year of the Domestic Abuse Bill being passed, we will be able to improve the identification, assessment and management of perpetrators to ensure a more co-ordinated approach to data collection across England and Wales.
That is critical to tackling domestic abuse in all its forms. Without an accurate picture, it is undeniable that cases will continue to fall through the net. It is utterly shameful that we live in a country where one woman is killed by a partner, ex-partner or family member every three days. Many of these perpetrators of violence have a history of abuse.
A multi-agency approach to managing risk is central to our ability to getting to grips with this crisis. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, only a few weeks ago, peers in the other place overwhelmingly voted for the plan to add convicted serial domestic abusers and stalkers to a high-risk offenders register. There is an obvious need and a desire for police forces and specialist agencies to have the tools to allow them to have a cohesive approach to preventing perpetrators from offending again, but also to protect victims going forward. Lords amendment 42, passed in the Lords, has the incredible potential to do just that, yet today Ministers are calling on MPs to vote to drop those plans.
Sadly, we all know the horrendous stories, we have all seen the headlines and we all know those women. The hard truth is that simply too often women are losing their lives at the hands of a perpetrator who has a history of abusive behaviour. That is an utterly shameful reality. I find it incomprehensible that the Government are failing to support action against serial abusers, who often pose the most serious risk of violence to women and girls.
There is no proper system for identifying these perpetrators, no system to monitor them and no system to centralise vital data that can assist in managing the risks and odds of abuse occurring when making initial risk assessments. I struggle to see how that can still be the case when we have known for years just how deeply rooted violence against women and girls and domestic abuse are in this country.
I pay tribute to campaigners such as Laura Richards, a former violent crime analyst for the Met police and the founder of the Paladin National Stalking Advocacy Service. She has been fighting for legislation covering monitoring arrangements for serial and high-harm domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators for years, and this is our chance to make that happen.
Domestic abuse is not inevitable, it is not something new and it is possible to prevent. Lords amendment 42 is a vital step forward, yet I find myself today facing a Government who just do not seem to get it. The Minister made some interesting remarks on the amendment in her opening contribution. She mentioned that the Government have concerns about the complexities of adding to the existing multi-agency public protection arrangements, but surely she must recognise that, if the Government’s hesitancy is about logistical challenges, as opposed to statutory frameworks, that opens some important questions about the Government’s ability to apply seriously the intricacies of the Bill in practice.
I am grateful for the honest assessment in recognising that there is more that the Home Office can do to improve arrangements, but I urge MPs to vote to keep Lords amendment 42 in the Bill and not to agree with the Government motion to reject the amendment.

Sara Britcliffe: This is a very important Bill. In April last year, I made my maiden speech during the Bill’s Second Reading debate and talked about my passion for supporting those who need it the most. Many Members from different parties have explained how far the Bill has come over the years, and it is important that changes have been made. I am proud to support the Bill as it will protect and give new rights to victims.
The Minister said in Committee that more than 2.4 million people are not safe in their own home and are subjected to scarring abuse. That is a huge figure and I am glad that the Government have responded to the voices of victims with this Bill, which is set to transform millions of lives. I thank everybody who has shared their personal experiences and contributed to the Bill.
Before I go any further, I wish to acknowledge the work of my local victim support services in Hyndburn police and the Hyndburn and Ribble Valley domestic violence team. These organisations have given a lifeline to domestic abuse victims in my constituency, as statistics continue to show the prevalence of domestic violence in households across the country. I speak regularly to Debbie who runs the Emily Davison Centre in my constituency. She has told me some harrowing stories and how covid has exasperated domestic abuse in homes. The centre has had to completely adapt the services that it provides and it is now much more about wraparound care.
I agree with the sentiments behinds all the Lords amendments, and I am pleased to see that the Government have accepted amendments such as Lords amendment 36 and Lords amendment 35, on what we know as revenge porn and the sharing of private images. Just the thought of being in that position, especially in professional positions—we will have seen and heard about that. It is hard to think that somebody could share an image and then everything that a person has worked for is gone, due to that one action by somebody who, in a lot of cases, that person will have previously loved, thinking it would never happen to them.
I welcome the Minister’s comments about the strategy review and the need for reform, and I welcome the support scheme for migrant victims, although, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), I would like the Minister to address specifically what it will look like. That is important for us all.
The Bill goes beyond previous definitions of domestic abuse and highlights the harrowing impact of emotional and coercive abuse. The definition is in place for victims who felt that their concerns were not legitimate when they were criticised by their partner and who were made to believe that the problem was always their fault. The Bill reinforces the rights of victims and shows perpetrators that they cannot get away with physical or emotional abuse anymore. As I have said previously, we are now joining together to say that it is absolutely not okay.
I got into politics to help those who have no voice and this landmark Bill does just that. I am proud of the difference that the Government are making, with this Bill, to the lives of people across the UK, and I am proud of the cross-party support that we have seen as we have moved through all its stages. I have not been  around for all the Bill’s stages, but I have seen that that support has done tremendous work in making the Bill what it is today.

Apsana Begum: I speak in support of the amendments passed by the Lords that seek to protect those suffering from all forms of domestic abuse, regardless of factors such as their age and immigration status. The no-recourse-to-public-funds condition means that migrant victims face an increased risk of abuse, with limited support services to which to turn. That is why I support the Lords amendments that would ensure that support is provided to people regardless of their immigration status.
Today, the Minister announced £1.5 million of funds for an immediate-support programme targeted at migrant women. She mentioned data collection for the programme in order to potentially inform a more sustainable future programme. Many migrant victims will be asking whether they should come forward to receive help from this Government-funded programme; what kind of data on the support they receive will be collected; and whether the risk of immigration enforcement and deportation is the same, if not higher.
Furthermore, questions remain as to what assurances there will be that the pilot will believe migrant women’s experiences of abuse and that they will not be seen through a lens of suspicion. Many are perceived as exaggerating their experiences of abuse and even accused of lying to be granted indefinite leave to remain. All this is against the backdrop of an increasingly inaccessible and restrictive immigration system.
If we can recognise that abusers threaten to inform authorities and exploit fears of deportation, why cannot we recognise the fear that victims have in coming forward to seek help? Perpetrators use such systems to perpetuate their control. The HMICFRS, the College of Policing and the Independent Office for Police Conduct said only last year that police forces should restrict the sharing of information about vulnerable victims of crime, such as in cases of domestic abuse, with immigration enforcement, because the current system has been causing significant harm to the public. The Government need to address that now, because addressing this means recognising migrant victims for the victims that they are where they are.
It is positive that there is now a recognition that the harm caused by domestic abuse is far-reaching and that, in order for us to fight it, there must be a co-ordinated response across a variety of Government Departments. I do welcome the Government accepting amendments on areas such as the prohibition of charging for GP letters, but these concessions must be seen in the context of the Government continuing to strip away provision after provision, benefit after benefit, community space after community space, so support for those in need continues to weaken.
As chair of the all-party group on domestic violence and abuse, I pay tribute to the tireless work of those who have gone before me, my predecessor in the chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), and the many campaigners who have fought with such bravery and determination to stand up against domestic abuse and injustice, empowering people who, for too long, have had no voice, with support and rights—people like myself. As a survivor of domestic  abuse, I cannot over-emphasise how, quite literally, life changing and life saving this support and solidarity can be. That is why it has truly been a privilege to be able to stand in this House and participate in the process of making the protections in this groundbreaking piece of legislation a reality. We can never stop our work in this area until no one has to go through what I have and what so many of us continue to be subjected to. This is why the amendments passed by this House, and by the House of Lords in particular, are so vital. Accordingly, I really urge the House to do the right thing today.

Richard Graham: It is a great honour to speak in this debate and to follow two moving and passionate speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum). But can I first pay tribute to three former colleagues who have so recently died? Earlier this week we paid our tributes to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, but, today, I want to pay tribute to Dame Cheryl Gillan, the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, and the former hon. Members for East Surrey, Peter Ainsworth, and for West Gloucestershire, Paul Marland. All three were, in their own ways, colleagues of the greatest fun and compassion in doing serious work.
Dame Cheryl in particular I want to thank for the advice she gave me when I joined our party board. Peter Ainsworth, who I have known since university, was a man of wide talents who played an important role after leaving this place in the Big Lottery and the Churches Conservation Trust. He was the only member of the shadow Cabinet to vote against the Iraq war. Paul Marland, who was the first Conservative MP for West Gloucestershire and represented that constituency, which neighbours my constituency of Gloucester, for 18 years should give everybody who aspires to be in politics the belief that, if you can keep trying, you will succeed, for he succeeded at the fourth attempt.
Turning now to this incredibly important Bill, the Domestic Abuse Bill, I cannot help but note today the number of speakers who have recognised, first, the importance of the Bill and, secondly, that the Bill has got better, as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) spelled out clearly. It is worth recognising how long work on this Bill has gone on for. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) briefly suggested that the work first started two generations ago, rather than two general elections ago, which is what she meant. It probably feels like that for the Ministers and those on the Bill Committee who have been involved. It has been a huge amount of work.
I pay particular tribute to the two Ministers who have been most closely involved—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk)—but there have been others too. I pay tribute to all those involved, on both sides of the House, for the importance of what they are doing.
It is important that men speak in this debate too. There is a danger of people thinking that the Domestic Abuse Bill is only about women and that only women  should speak. It is incredibly important that those of us who are very conscious of domestic abuse issues should speak, and that constituents and people in our own offices and families who have had problems and been victims of domestic abuse can be represented by men on this issue as well as by female Members.
There is, of course, a hazard of a Bill such as this—that it might attract all sorts of other things that are not strictly to do with domestic abuse. One Member referred to the fact that there was nothing on stalking; another referred to issues about abuse by carers of people with disabilities. Those are incredibly important issues, but they are not within the scope of the Bill.
However, as we have heard today, amendments have been made that definitely improve the Bill. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) made an important point about what a difference Lords amendment 36, on non-fatal strangulation, will make. Measures have been taken to ban the rough sex defence, and against revenge pornography—an offence unknown when I left university but one very much known to my children as they leave university.
Those measures are incredibly welcome, as are new protections for children, and the important measure to protect victims of domestic abuse after the perpetrator left the shared home. I know of one case where a court order has banned someone from any contact with his previous partner, but they live in the same part of Gloucestershire, where there is only one supermarket. Almost inevitably, there is a risk of them bumping into each other in that place. It is very difficult to implement a court order of that kind in some places.
The other thing the Government should be given credit for is the business of reopening the consultation in the wake of the horrific death of Sarah Everard. The huge number of contributions to that consultation, and the number of people who had stories that they wanted to share, were surely a reminder to us all of how important the issue of domestic abuse is. I think we will all have benefited from understanding the strength of public feeling on this issue.
There are lots of good things here. There are two things, however, that I would very much like the Minister, when she winds up the debate, to respond to. The first is on Lords amendment 41, which I think I am right in saying was originally tabled in their lordships’ House as amendment 70 in the name of Bishop Rachel of Gloucester. There are very few times when I remotely wish to disagree with my own bishop, who is making a huge difference to her diocese, but on this, I am led to believe by the Minister that the pilot projects that have started will be rolled out further across the country, and that there is a clear intent—both in the Bill and in the Departments involved—that anyone who suffers domestic abuse, whatever their immigration status, will be protected and given all the support that is needed, but that that is separate from the issue of whether someone has the right to remain. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm what will happen to the pilot projects.
Secondly, on amendment 42, several speakers today—including, I believe, the shadow Minister—referred to the tragic death of young hairdresser Hollie Gazzard in my constituency some years ago: a case about which I know more than I ever imagined. I managed to check with her father, Nick Gazzard, who now runs the Hollie  Gazzard Trust, and he believes there is a need for a separate register for serial offenders to make sure that prolific and serious abusers are visible to various organisations.
I will have a separate consultation with Nick Gazzard about this, because I think it is perfectly possible—the Minister for Crime and Policing is in his place on the Front Bench and may be able to comment on this—for police constabularies to make sure that they add the names of serial or prolific domestic abuse offenders to the risk offender list and that it is not necessarily essential to have a separate list. It is vital to try to address this point, which Nick Gazzard has made in the wake of the tragic murder of his daughter: various organisations must be able to see the names of serial high-risk offenders to try to make sure that there are fewer incidents in future. I hope the Minister will comment on that at the end of the debate.
Let me finish by saying that if one hazard of all legislation is that all sorts of other issues are laden on to a specific Bill, another is that a Bill can be lost at the end of a parliamentary Session. We have heard today from a number of speakers on the Opposition Benches about how good this Bill largely is: the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) specifically described it as a good Bill and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) acknowledged how far the Bill has come. It would be an absolute tragedy if at this late stage of the Parliament the Bill were lost.
I therefore urge Opposition Members, both in this and their lordships’ House, who approve of much, if not all, of what is in the Bill already, to make sure that it is not lost. That would let down victims who can see hope and would give comfort only to perpetrators—exactly what we would not wish to see. I will support the Bill and I encourage all Members to do so.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Diolch yn fawr Madam Ddirprwy Lefarydd. I, too, would be very grateful for the opportunity to pay tribute to Dame Cheryl Gillan. She was of course a former Secretary of State for Wales, and when I first arrived in the House in 2015 I personally found her very keen and very supportive of cross-party working. It was a pleasure and honour to work with her.
I am, of course, pleased that this vital legislation has nearly completed its passage through the House and the other place. It has been an extremely interesting learning experience over two general elections for me as well, with the Joint Committees working on this. The issue of domestic violence has come into sharp focus in the public mind following the deaths of Sarah Everard, Wenjing Lin and others, and it is right to acknowledge that the Bill represents a positive step forward in addressing the deep-rooted reality of domestic violence in society.
First, I want to welcome the Government’s support for a number of Lords amendments—including especially Lords amendment 32, which seeks to reduce coercive control and vexatious activities in the family courts. I am glad to say I was able to raise this issue in my Courts (Abuse of Process) Bill back in 2017.
As for the rest of the amendments, a key concern of mine and many others has already been mentioned today: the monitoring of offenders and the effectiveness  of the multi-agency public protection arrangements. I tabled an early amendment for a domestic abuse register and am pleased that Lords amendment 42 follows in the same vein. As Baroness Brinton said in the other place about MAPPA, there is some very good practice but it is not consistent because the agencies are not being forced to work together. The impact that is having on victims is appalling.
The Government need to evidence how exactly their changes to MAPPA guidance will be qualitatively different from what came about before. These figures are important. At present, just 0.4% of cases fall into category 3 of MAPPA—that is, on average, just 330 offenders a year, and the numbers have fallen by 48% since 2010. MAPPA category 3 can cover domestic offenders, yet it does not, at present, does it? The optimistic statement that data sharing will wave a magic wand and make this fit for purpose, especially after 11 years of austerity justice, is quite difficult to credit on face value.
The Government have promised that changes in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will clarify and extend the information-sharing powers of agencies subject to MAPPA. It is crucial that these measures complement rather than run counter to Senedd legislation in Wales. For example, how will updated information-sharing powers interact with devolved services in education and housing—areas of policy that should play a key role in the prevention agenda?
The Home Secretary had previously hinted that a register could be implemented. Can the Minister commit to reporting back to this House with data about how stalking and domestic abuse offenders will be increasingly monitored through MAPPA, and also commit to evaluating the effectiveness of this route? We have all learned too much to trust implicitly a system that has failed so many victims so comprehensively in the past.
On domestic abuse protection orders, I echo Welsh Women’s Aid’s call for clarity on the delivery of DAPOs for Wales. Further clarity on resourcing and guidance for both devolved and non-devolved areas are important, as the jagged edge of justice in action in Wales needs greater scrutiny—until, of course, such matters are coherently devolved. How will DAPOs be resourced? What guidance on resourcing will there be for commissioners both devolved and non-devolved, and how will the UK Government work with the Welsh Government on the application of DAPOs?
I strongly support Lords amendments 40, 41 and 43, which offer protections for migrant women who have suffered domestic abuse, given that they face additional, complex, interlocking barriers that can shut them out of safety. The Government argue that the existing asylum system can offer support to migrant victims, but in reality this is not often the case, and the Home Secretary’s plans for changes to the asylum system will make it harder for migrant victims to access support and fair treatment if they arrive in the UK by non-official means.
This flies in the face of the Istanbul convention, which requires that survivors of violence against women and girls can access protection irrespective of their immigration status. My party wants Wales to be a nation of sanctuary for those fleeing abuse and persecution and for us to be party to implementing the Istanbul convention in full. Sadly, however, the Government’s position at present is a barrier to these ambitions.
I urge the Government to support the Lords amendments and enact the ambitious and transformational change needed to shift the focus and balance in favour of the needs and welfare of victims, so that we can consign domestic abuse to the history books across the UK.

David Simmonds: I support this Bill because it is an opportunity to make a real difference to the lives of those affected by domestic abuse. We all recognise that enormous progress has been made in the way we treat victims and their families, and also perpetrators, and the Bill sets out positive steps and more progress that we plan to make. A lot of the debate about the amendments before the House reflects a desire for practical outcomes that Members want to see, yet I accept the Government’s position that many of these are often better achieved through non-legislative means.
The response to domestic abuse as experienced by victims, families and perpetrators comes from a local partnership typically led by our councils but involving the police and the NHS. It is through these organisations that we make the difference that we all want to see. Ensuring that we learn from their experience and that we resource them properly to do the job we expect of them is critical. I pay tribute to the work done by former Hillingdon councillor Mary O’Connor, serving Hillingdon councillors Jane Palmer and Janet Gardner, and former safeguarding board chair Stephen Ashley to improve the way in which domestic abuse is managed in my constituency. They led the way in training people to identify victims of modern slavery and in uncovering complex forms of abuse, including coercive control. They have created a situation for my constituents where there is a local safe space night-time economy, with more than 40 businesses and hundreds of staff in different organisations trained in identifying the signs of risk and knowing how to support people. Vitally, they have ensured that this learning is shared at a national level, to help other places transform their approach too.
I conclude by urging Ministers to take a joined-up approach across Government. The sentiments that have been expressed in the debate need to find a practical expression at a local level. Things such as refuge space, especially where children need a place in a refuge as well, and the availability of programmes to local agencies that will target perpetrators, seeking to turn that situation around, all involve appropriate resourcing across multiple Departments and a high degree of focus.
Furthermore, we need to ensure that guidance on safeguarding such as that issued by the Department for Education in the document “Working together to safeguard children” is fully fit for purpose and includes organisations such as schools, which are often the first to come across the warning signs that someone is a victim of domestic abuse or that domestic abuse is present in a household but are not currently statutory partners in safeguarding. In the Minister’s response, I would be pleased to hear some clear assurance that that cross-Government focus and approach will feature as we take this legislation forward and implement it for the benefit of all our constituents.

Stephen Timms: I add my tribute to our late colleague Dame Cheryl Gillan.
I agree very much with what the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) said about the importance of the role of local councils in dealing with problems of abuse. Like a number of other Members, I want to support Lords amendments 41, 40 and 43 and to argue that a serious problem of perpetrator immunity needs to be grasped and tackled. I welcome what the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) had to say on this.
Lords amendment 41 was moved in the other place by the Bishop of Gloucester. It provides migrant victims of abuse with temporary leave to remain and access to public funds for no less than six months, having left the abuse and while applying to regularise their status. People are often surprised that a large number of law-abiding, hard-working families in the UK—often with children born here, and sometimes with children who are UK nationals—have an immigration status subject to no recourse to public funds.
For a victim of domestic abuse, having no recourse to public funds is catastrophic. Basic victim protections are not available. Only 5% of refuge vacancies are accessible because costs in a refuge are generally met through housing benefit, and people with no recourse to public funds cannot claim housing benefit. Women’s Aid points out that a woman with no recourse to public funds who, as a result, cannot stay in a refuge has to choose between homelessness or going back to their abuser.
I commend the important work of Southall Black Sisters in this area, which has been frequently referenced in the debate. It says:
“Many women are too scared to report their experiences to statutory agencies because they are wholly financially and otherwise dependent on their abusive spouses or partners, many of whom use women’s immigration status as a weapon of control and coercion.”
The denial of safety in these arrangements to migrant women is obviously bad for them, but it has other immensely damaging impacts as well. Above all, it creates impunity for perpetrators, who get free rein to go on and harm other women and children.
The Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to provide accommodation and financial support for some families with no recourse to public funds, but they often do not provide it, due to lack of resources or confusion about what exactly people with no recourse to public funds are entitled to. There is, in practice, a postcode lottery of support, so Southall Black Sisters often has to take legal action against councils that are not fulfilling their obligations to vulnerable women. That is no way to run a system of proper support.
The DV rule introduced in 2002, which has been mentioned in this debate, allows migrant women on spouse visas to apply for indefinite leave when their relationship breaks down due to violence. In 2012, a concession was introduced giving those applicants three months’ leave and access to limited benefits and temporary housing while their applications for indefinite leave are considered, but the concession does not apply to women with other kinds of visas, including those with student visas, work permit holders and domestic workers. Southall Black Sisters reports more and more women on those  other kinds of visas with no recourse to public funds being turned away, including by refuges and domestic abuse services.
Women’s Aid found in its report “Nowhere to turn” that, over a year, two thirds of its users were ineligible for support because they had visas other than spouse visas. There is a 2019 study by the professor of development geography at King’s College London, which reported a survey of migrant victims of domestic violence, in which two thirds had been threatened by the perpetrator of the abuse that they would be deported if they reported it. The ability to make that threat credibly, which the current arrangements allow, maintains the awful climate of impunity that we have at the moment. The Government are right to recognise that abused migrant women with insecure status need immediate support and protection, but restricting it only to women with spouse visas perpetuates impunity for perpetrators, and that is in nobody’s interests except the perpetrators.
The Government have responded with the support for migrant victims fund pilot, which we have heard about, both to support survivors of domestic abuse with no recourse to public funds and to help gather data to formulate policies eventually to support all migrant victims of domestic abuse. It is due to report next March, and I welcome the announcement that Southall Black Sisters will manage it, but it has been pointing out that there is already ample evidence. We do not need more evidence on this. The pilot and the Bishop of Gloucester pointed out what a small amount of funding it entails, compared with the scale of the problem, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted that in his earlier intervention. The pilot must not be used to avoid addressing the problem and to carry on maintaining perpetrator impunity. We need the change in the law that amendment 41 would provide.

Jim Shannon: I want to put on the record my party’s condolences and thoughts about Dame Cheryl Gillan. I had the opportunity to speak alongside her, along with many others in this House, in many debates in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall. She had a particular interest in autism, which I have an interest in. I want to put on the record my condolences to her family, which I have conveyed by letter already.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on this weighty, comprehensive and important issue. I begin by thanking the Government for the proposals to change the wider support for those suffering from domestic violence. I thank the Lords for their reasoned amendments, a few of which I will discuss in the short time available to me. In particular, I want to thank the Minister and the shadow Minister. The significant contributions from right hon. and hon. Members have really enhanced the debate on this Bill.
To illustrate the importance of getting this right, I wish to highlight that there are approximately 1.8 million people in Northern Ireland. In the year between October 2019 and October 2020, there were 32,000 reported incidents of domestic violence within our very small population. Of course, charities always tell us that the figure is much higher, when we consider how many incidents are unreported.
Coronavirus has affected us all over the past year and a bit. Heightened domestic abuse is another side-effect of this dreadful pandemic and the forced isolation that has come with it, so we need to get this Bill right, and  that is why I am very grateful for the Lords amendments. For many victims, going to the police is the very last step in a long, harrowing journey of abuse. It is our responsibility to ensure that no one walks that journey alone.

Mark Tami: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that the police look at patterns of behaviour? I have often found that they look at these as isolated incidents—whether that is stalking, or whatever it is—rather than an actual pattern of behaviour?

Jim Shannon: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), made that point very well in her introduction. If there is a pattern—other Members across the Chamber have referred to this—there is a need for the police to be aware of that.
In reading through the Lords amendments, I noted that Lords amendment 39, after clause 72, highlighted that there must a prohibition on charging for the provision of medical evidence of domestic abuse. This should go unsaid, yet I understand the rationale behind highlighting this.
That brought my mind to the fact that the Bar Council had asked for the financial income limit as it pertains to legal aid to be withdrawn. Many Members have referred to legal aid. Legal aid expenditure on domestic violence cases has been cut by 41% in real terms, and has been declining ever since, with a 51% reduction. At the same time, I believe sincerely that this decline in funding cannot be attributed to a reduction in need, because the figures tell us something different. They tell us that there has been a 49% increase in domestic violence cases in the courts since 2012. Again, the situation since the start of the pandemic indicates that cases and reporting are likely to continue to increase even more so, meaning that we can expect a continued increase in the number of cases in court, with the UN—we cannot ignore it—calling domestic violence a “shadow pandemic”. That is a massive issue, which we must try to look at. Money is often controlled by the abuser. In terms of legal aid, it is clear that the victim must never be put in a position whereby they halt proceedings due to the lack of legal aid support. Legal aid is therefore a really important issue to those who are subjected to domestic violence.
I welcome many of the amendments that have come forward, such as Lords amendment 6 to amend clause 33, highlighting the need for domestic abuse protection orders to include a requirement not to
“come within a specified distance of any other specified premises”—
such as workplaces or, for example, even places of worship. Those are ones that I would be aware of and that change in the law is so important. In my constituency, over the years, I have honestly been heartbroken and righteously angry about the tales of intimidation from an abuser towards a victim in safe places, such as their local church and their workplace, and it is past time that churches and other places can legally prevent access in an attempt to intimidate. This provision is therefore necessary and I trust that it will soon become law.
Another issue that has come to me in my constituency office relates to the technological age that we live in. It is always great to be able see photos of my grandchildren—I  have two grandchildren who have been born in lockdown, and I have seen one because we were able to have our cluster at Christmas. I have not seen the other one up close, except in a video—one thing I do know is that he has red hair; I am not quite sure where the red hair came from, as it is certainly not from my side of the family, but obviously there is some a few generations back somewhere—but I look forward very much to that time. However, I am desperately aware that there is a very real, very difficult and very disturbing downside of the no-hassle digital picture age, and that relates to revenge porn using very personal images. Every Member has spoken about that and I will, too, because I feel really annoyed and angry about it.
I have watched as my office staff have consoled young ladies whose ex-partners have threatened to disclose images, and their devastation is so very real and heartbreaking. The staff have a sadness in their faces as they know that unless an image is posted, very little can be done under harassment or other general laws, yet the distress is real; it is palpable—it could touch you and cut you. This behaviour is clearly another example of threat and control. It is right and proper that it is addressed in the Bill and I wholeheartedly support Lords amendment 35, which seeks to clarify that it is not okay to threaten the release of these images—by anyone, male or female. Sometimes we must remind ourselves that the release of any personal image without consent can be emotionally damaging for any person, no matter how seemingly confident they may be. Personal images are just that—intensely personal. I welcome the amendment’s reaffirming that no one can have the right to release an image of a personal nature without consent.
To conclude—I said I would be quick, Madam Deputy Speaker—it is difficult for one Bill to cover all the facets of the support and help that is needed for domestic abuse victims, but we must seek to get this right and ensure that the law supports every victim and does not further traumatise. I thank the Minister and the Government for their sterling efforts to deliver a Domestic Abuse Bill that really can protect.

Victoria Atkins: Home should be a place of love and safety, but for 2.3 million adult victims of domestic abuse, and for their children, it is not. We all want this abuse to stop, and we want victims to live peaceful, safe and happy lives, and as I have said many times at this Dispatch Box, that is why this Government are bringing forward the Domestic Abuse Bill. The continued passage of the Bill marks an important milestone in our shared endeavour across the House to provide better support and protection for the victims of domestic abuse and their children. It is the culmination of over three years of work, although I rather liked the slip of the tongue by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) when she said it felt like two generations. I pay tribute in particular to my right hon. Friend, who as chair of the Joint Committee, set in train much of the work that has happened in this place and the other place when the Bill was in draft form. I thank her sincerely.
I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for championing the Bill, both as Home Secretary and as Prime Minister, and now—eminently, if I may say so—from the Back Benches. I  also thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed today. The Bill has been improved during the course of debate in both Houses. It was scrutinised properly and thoroughly by their lordships, whom I thank for their vital contributions. I do not know whether many other Bills have had a mere 86 amendments to them when they came back to this place. This is a sign of their lordships’ commitment. The Bill includes real measures to help victims of domestic abuse and, as we have heard, even beyond those relationships. It expressly recognises the harm and distress caused to victims by so-called revenge porn and threats to disclose such images.
The Bill also creates a new offence of non-fatal strangulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) did much in this place when the Bill was before us for scrutiny, along with the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), to campaign on the issues of rough sex and non-fatal strangulation. My hon. Friend asked me about consent in the amendment, and I want to try to clarify that in order to reassure people who may be watching. A valid defence of consent is available under the new offence only where the offence does not involve causing serious harm or where the perpetrator can show that they had not intended to cause serious harm or had not been reckless as to the serious harm caused. This provision reflects the current law as set out in R v. Brown and, indeed, in the rough sex clause that was passed earlier in the Bill’s progress. We have had to be, and tried to be, consistent with both of those provisions, and I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
I have listened carefully to colleagues who have raised the issue of the management of perpetrators. This is absolutely critical. I have talked in the past about the evolution of our understanding of domestic abuse. We look back on the days of the 1970s when brave campaigners for Refuge and other organisations started setting  up refuges and talking about domestic violence. Our understanding and our efforts to deal with this have obviously moved absolute milestones in the decades since then, but one of the challenges that we will certainly be looking to address in the domestic abuse strategy is the management of perpetrators. I am delighted that we are now investing unprecedented amounts in perpetrator programmes, as announced in the Budget, because we have to prevent perpetrators from committing harm in the first place. Again, let me emphasise that the reason we find ourselves unable to accept that Lords amendment is that creating a separate category as envisaged in the Lords amendment does not get away from the need for the MAPPA authorities to make a judgment in individual cases as to whether a particular offender should be managed under the framework. I want to be clear that three categories exist in MAPPA. Category 1 covers registered sexual offenders. Category 2 covers any violent offender or other sexual offenders convicted of offences under schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003  and sentenced to more than 12 months’ imprisonment. Category 3 covers any other dangerous offender. So on the sorts of horrific examples we have been hearing about, if there are convictions in the background of those offenders, these categories would cover some of  the convictions that have been described. I say that, but I hope again that colleagues have appreciated that I have been very clear that there must be improvements in how the system works on the ground. That is why we have announced—we went into a little more detail in the “Dear colleague” letter—that we are going to revisit and refresh all relevant chapters of the MAPPA statutory guidance so as to include sections on domestic abuse, to ensure that agencies are taking steps to identify perpetrators whose risk requires active multi-agency management. We are ensuring that cases of domestic abuse perpetrators captured under categories 1 and 2 are included in the threshold guidance that is being developed. We will issue an HM Prison and Probation Service policy framework setting out clear expectations of the management of all cases at MAPPA level 1. This work on this new system, the multi-agency public protection system, will have a much greater functionality than existing systems, including ViSOR, enabling criminal justice agencies to share information efficiently and to improve risk assessment and management of MAPPA nominals. That is what will address the very understandable concerns that colleagues have raised in this debate.
I come to the final point I wish to touch upon, and I hope colleagues will understand why I am going to be quick. Hon. Members have raised questions and concerns about the issue of judicial training. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) set out the problems with the way in which Lords amendment 33 seeks to achieve that laudable aim, which we all agree with, of ensuring that the judiciary and magistrates must be trained well and, importantly, trained regularly. Referring back to the comments I was making earlier about the progress that has been made in the past few decades, let me say that, by definition, our understanding has grown, even, as some have said, during the passage of this Bill. Of course, that knowledge must continue to be deployed and trained. Domestic abuse is covered in all family law courses run by the Judicial College, and the debates held in the other place and in this place will I know—I have faith—have been watched and listened to very carefully by the President of the family court and others.

Jess Phillips: I admire the hon. Lady’s faith, but I would like something more than faith. The triumph of hope over experience will, I fear, leave us in the exact same position with the exact same problems. Faith is well and good—I have it in spades—but I would like to know about a monitoring process that will be done to review how well people are trained and how well this is working.

Victoria Atkins: I am happy to help the hon. Lady. As I said in my opening remarks, the President of the Family Division has indicated that he will consider making recommendations regarding training, taking into account this Bill, the harm panel report, which, as she knows, is critical to the Ministry of Justice’s concerns in this area and the four recent Court of Appeal judgments in domestic abuse cases. I would argue that there is a real understanding among our independent judiciary of the need to make sure that they are equipped to ensure that justice is delivered—and delivered well—in the courtrooms over which they preside.
In summing up, let me reflect on the course of the Bill. Progress on the Bill has been characterised by a determination on both sides of the House to work constructively and collegiately. At every stage, we have endeavoured to focus on what can be done to help victims of domestic abuse and to ensure that the abuse can stop. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke put it, these are not our issues—these are not party political issues—but the issues of our constituents who are victims and of their children, and I know that each and every one of us has had that very much in mind in all our deliberations on the Bill.
I therefore commend the Bill and the amendments that the Government support to the House. I very much hope that we will be able to make real and meaningful progress and pass the Bill, so that we can get on with the job of helping the victims we all feel so strongly about.

Rosie Winterton: Before I put the Question, just a reminder that, should there be more than one Division, the doors will be locked after eight minutes in the first Division and, after that, after five minutes.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

The House divided: Ayes 360, Noes 221.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Lords amendments 2 and 3 disagreed to.
Lords amendments 4 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 55 - Support provided by local authorities to victims of domestic abuse

Motion made and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 9.—(Victoria Atkins.)

The House divided: Ayes 352, Noes 222.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 9 disagreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Lords amendments 10 to 32 agreed to.

After Clause 64 - Training

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 33.—(Victoria Atkins.)

The House divided: Ayes 361, Noes 218.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 33 disagreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Lords amendments 34 to 36 agreed to.

Before Clause 69 - Reasonable force in domestic abuse cases

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 37.—(Victoria Atkins.)

The House divided: Ayes 362, Noes 217.
Question accordingly agreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Lords amendment 37 disagreed to.

Defence for victims of domestic abuse who commit an offence

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 38.—(Victoria Atkins.)

The House divided: Ayes 362, Noes 217.
Question accordingly agreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Lords amendment 38 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 39 agreed to.

After Clause 72 - Victims of domestic abuse: data-sharing for immigration purposes

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 40.—(Victoria Atkins.)

The House divided: Ayes 350, Noes 270.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 40 disagreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Victims of domestic abuse: leave to remain and the destitution domestic violence concession (DDVC)

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 41.—(Victoria Atkins.)

The House divided: Ayes 352, Noes 270.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 41 disagreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Monitoring of serial and serious harm domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 42.—(Victoria Atkins.)

The House divided: Ayes 351, Noes 226.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 42 disagreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Government amendments (a) to (c) made in lieu of Lords amendment 42.

Effective protection and support for all victims of domestic abuse

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 43.—(Victoria Atkins.)

The House divided: Ayes 352, Noes 226.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 43 disagreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).
Lords amendment 83 disagreed to.
Lords amendments 44 to 82 and 84 to 86 agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1, 2, 3, 9, 33, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43 and 83.
That Victoria Atkins, Tom Pursglove, Michael Tomlinson and Chris Elmore be members of the Committee.
That Victoria Atkins be the Chair of the Committee.
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Rosie Winterton: In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.

Petition - Independence of City of York Council

Rachael Maskell: In connection with this petition, I must mention that four of my employees are currently City of York councillors.
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the 3,261 residents and businesses of York who are committed to local government reorganisation maintaining the integrity of the City of York Council unitary authority boundaries while North Yorkshire County Council moves from a two-tier to a one-tier authority as part of local government reorganisation proposed for North Yorkshire. It is our very firm belief that the future of York’s economy is best served through the focus that the city provides, that services best meet local need when they are provided locally, and that the proud identity of local people will best be retained in our special city of York after 800 years of a clear and distinct identity of York being York. This strong core to North Yorkshire will best meet the needs of the rest of North Yorkshire, too, rather than some random east-west proposal that serves no one’s interests.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to listen closely to York’s residents and businesses and to the City of York Council’s submission to its consultation on local government devolution, and to work with all local politicians, including MPs, city councillors and parish and town councillors, on any decisions to do with York’s council.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of York Central,
Declares that York’s residents and businesses are best served by having an independent council, on its current boundaries, that is focused solely on their needs and provides the basis for economic opportunity, high quality public services and a stronger community; further declares concern that if York is merged into a new council stretching 65 miles north to south there could be an increase in council tax by £117 per year; further that this would inevitably mean that resources could be diverted from York and residents would pay more money for poorer services; further that this would lead to the end of the 800-year connection between the city and its council; further that the role of Lord Mayor might be scrapped; further that the disruption to key service delivery across York would cost millions of pounds to implement; and further that it would be disastrous to do this during a public health crisis.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to listen closely to York’s residents and businesses and to the City of York Council’s submission to its consultation on local government devolution, and to work with all local politicians, including MPs, city councillors and parish and town councillors, on any decisions to do with York’s council.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002658]

Petition - Residents of Mary Feilding Guild care home

Catherine West: I am very pleased to present a petition in the Chamber today, on behalf of hundreds of members of the community in Hornsey and Wood Green, relating to the Mary Feilding Guild care home—a particularly loved care home in Highgate that has recently been bought by a new owner. The new owner has given elderly residents notice to move out by the end of next month, and the reply from the Health and Social Care Minister to my urgent inquiry of 11 March is still outstanding. May I just add that one of the residents passed away this week? She had a stroke and died yesterday.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Hornsey and Wood Green,
Declares that it is appalling that the new owners of the Mary Feilding Guild have issued eviction notices to the elderly residents during a pandemic; further that this is no way to treat vulnerable older people who have already been through such a difficult year.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to call on the owners to halt their plans immediately, cancel the eviction notices and instead work with residents to save their homes.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002659]

English Language Sector

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Conor Burns: It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this Adjournment debate this afternoon and to conclude the formal business of the House this week, in which we gathered to pay tribute to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. I would like to add my own tributes to the Duke. The Duke held a popular misconception about the town of Bournemouth, which I represent, which he demonstrated to me on one occasion in Buckingham Palace when he said, “Where are you from?” I said, “Bournemouth, Sir.” He said, “Bournemouth, hmm. Full of old people.” I said, “Indeed, Sir. Many of them a good deal younger than you.” He looked thunderous for about three seconds, then burst out laughing and called the Queen over to tell her about the exchange.
I rise to speak on a constituency interest, but also on a national interest. This debate is about the future of the English language sector. My constituency of Bournemouth West has a very high proportion of English language schools within it. It is one of the things that adds to the cultural social diversity of the town that I have the privilege to serve.
It is—I rather sadly looked this up earlier—3,948 days since I rose in this Chamber to deliver my maiden speech in an Adjournment debate on the subject of the future of the English language sector. At the time, we were trying to persuade the Government to introduce an extended student visitor visa to allow those coming from beyond the nations with which we share an alphabet—places such as Japan, China and Korea—to have longer to visit to learn the fundamentals of the alphabet before they learned the language, which of course took a longer time. I am pleased to say that we were successful in persuading the Government to go down that course.
In that debate, I tried to outline the importance of the English language sector to the UK. I said:
“The English language is one of our greatest assets. English is the language of world commerce, and if we shut off the ability of those schools to thrive, to welcome people to our shores and to enable them to immerse themselves in our language, our culture and our values, in time we will look back and realise that we made a very fundamental mistake.”—[Official Report, 24 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 538.]
I am pleased to say that we did not make that mistake. Despite various challenges, the sector has thrived over the years.
The Prime Minister, when he was Foreign Secretary, used to boast of the statistic that one in seven of the kings, queens, presidents and prime ministers around the world had their education here in the United Kingdom. When I had the privilege of serving as the Minister of State for Trade Policy, I had co-responsibility for the international education strategy alongside the Minister of State in the Department for Education. We saw the vital importance of English in promoting Britain’s interests overseas commercially, politically and socially.

Anthony Mangnall: My right hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech about the importance of the English language sector and English language in schools, and he rightly identifies the point about soft  power. Will he also reflect a little on the positive impact that being able to welcome people has on our constituencies and our local economies? I have two English language schools in Totnes, one of which sadly has not made it through this crisis, but the other, which has, I hope will have a long and prosperous future. Does he agree that by securing their future, we can benefit both our soft power and our local community’s interest?

Conor Burns: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who as ever demonstrates what a powerful champion he is for the community he serves. He is absolutely right, it is not just about the direct employment provided by the schools in terms of their teaching staff and ancillary staff who support their work, but the host families who welcome students into their home as a vital part of the experience. One of the reasons, which I will come on to a little bit later, why the response to the sector going online is not quite as compelling as it at first may seem is that part of the experience is actually coming to the UK and going on cultural visits to Stonehenge, to see Westminster Abbey, Parliament and Salisbury Cathedral, and do all the things that people do when they are here.
My hon. Friend is very wise to point out that the spend of these visitors is much higher than that of traditional visitors in the time they are here, so the benefit to our local economies is enormous. That is before we even consider the long-term, slow-burn benefit we get as the people who have come here, studied here and immersed themselves in our language, culture and cultural traditions —and have been, although perhaps not in recent years, inspired by our parliamentary democracy—return as champions for the United Kingdom in their home countries. As they grow into positions of political and commercial leadership in their home countries, often that benefit is returned to the UK in contracts awarded and supply chains enhanced, so it is very powerful indeed.
Of the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard, I note that in The Times yesterday the brilliant sketch writer Quentin Letts referred to him coming to do an urgent question earlier in the week, saying that
“the Whips fielded their second-string punchbag, a business minister”.
Well, I am not going to punch my hon. Friend, but I know he understands this issue and this sector, and is indeed sympathetic to the cause I am trying to advance on its behalf.
I want to get on to the business end of the problem we currently face. Like many other sectors, those in this sector have been profoundly affected by the implications of the covid crisis. One of the things they need is financial support to survive and be in a position to reopen when normal commercial travel is resumed and we can welcome students again to the United Kingdom to study. They have been disappointed and I think perhaps even bemused to find this in the guidance issued by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in February 2021. Question 4 in the question and answer section asks:
“Are schools and education providers eligible to receive grants under the LRSG (Closed) Addendum: 5 January onwards, and Closed Businesses Lockdown Payment Schemes?”
The answer is:
“Schools and education providers, including English language schools, tutoring services, private and state schools, are not mandated to close in the regulations and are therefore not eligible to receive a grant under these schemes.”
Of course, it is absolutely correct to say that the schools were not mandated, but the reality is that, because of the number of other very difficult decisions that the Government rightly had to take to protect the safety of our population, they have had to close because their customers have not been able to travel to the UK to enrol on those courses and their business have been dramatically impacted. I will say a word about that in a moment.
The Department says, and I understand why it is saying this, that the schools are not eligible for the restart grants as this funding is for the businesses in the non-essential retail, hospitality, leisure, personal care and accommodation sectors, and they were not mandated to close and therefore they are not eligible for support from the mandatory grants scheme, but they are eligible for support through the discretionary funding available to local authorities. In my own case, my local council is doing its level best to get support to those businesses. Of course, it is not as generous as it would have been under the preceding scheme had they been brought under its auspices.
Business rates are in fact the largest single fixed costs— non-controllable costs—that businesses face and, bluntly, it will make the difference between their surviving or going under. As I said 10 years ago or nearly 11 years ago, I think we will look back with regret if we see this sector go under for the want of a relatively modest element of support. Ministers these days—I suppose I was guilty of it as well—use the word “investment” as though it is synonymous with spending, and much of it is actually just spending, not investment, because one gets a return on investment.
This would be an investment because, for the reasons I have articulated, this sector is so vital to the UK. It is worth about £1.4 billion in value added, with 35,000 jobs, and is part of the wider £20 billion international education sector. Some 91% of the employees in the sector have been either furloughed or sacked. Student numbers are down by 79% on 2019. The hopes of a longed-for summer recovery have been hit badly by the outbreak of and renewed rise in cases in some of the main countries that we attract students from. Only 17 local authorities across the whole UK are providing business rate relief to these schools.
The ask of the sector is straightforward. I am not asking for a commitment from the Minister today, but could he undertake to go away and look at this and meet me and representatives of the sector to talk about what further support could be put in place to help the sector? Could we extend the business rate relief to language schools in the same way as we have for other leisure and hospitality businesses for the current financial year and into the next financial year? We have already seen 13%—more than 50 educational centres—close during the pandemic, which is a serious and regrettable situation and, sadly, one that I predict will get worse if we do not do something in the coming months.
Could we extend the List of Travellers scheme post October 2021, so that third party national school groups would not need visas to come to the United Kingdom? Could we look at extending again something that was offered up 11 years ago in return for the extended student visitor visa: limited rights to work for students who are in the UK? I see my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson)  on the Treasury Bench, and the hospitality sector is very important to our part of the UK in Dorset. Businesses in the sector are struggling, post our departure from the European Union, to find the staff to populate hotels and restaurants as they prepare to reopen, due to people returning from this country to their home countries. This could be a very good way to give them some respite. Those are just some of the small things that we could look to do.

Anthony Mangnall: I apologise for having two bites at the cherry, as it were, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we might try to make it easier for people to set up English language schools? We have lost some, as he has outlined, but being able to set up English language schools when normality returns would be a strong way to fulfil the points that he has made.

Conor Burns: I absolutely agree with and endorse the sentiment that my hon. Friend expresses. When I travelled as a Trade Minister, I was struck by the very fond reflections that the people I met had of their time in the UK—people in Chile, Brazil and even in Vietnam. Through the GREAT brand, we put some extra money into promoting the English language sector and other aspects of our educational provision. One massively untapped area where the UK is a world leader is special educational needs, and we could do an awful lot to share that with other countries around the world.
We are not the only place where can come to learn English—we might be the best, but we are not the only one. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States and Ireland are all competing for students in this market, and they are doing lots of things to make life easier for those seeking to come and study in those countries, such as accessible visa applications, in-country visa extensions and part-time work rights. The Prime Minister very much shared my long-term bugbear about the fact that we should remove international students from the net migration figures, because it sends a very negative message internationally and confuses our offer to the wider world.
That is all that I want to say on this subject, because I want to leave plenty of time for the Minister to reply, but what I am really saying to him is, will he undertake to look at this and work with me and the sector to see what we can do to support this incredibly powerful national asset that is so pivotal to our ambition to be global Britain?

Paul Scully: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) on securing today’s important debate and want to start by noting that the Government have introduced an unprecedented package of support for businesses, including grants for those businesses that are required to close or that are severely affected by restrictions put in place to tackle covid-19 and save lives. With the new restart grant scheme available from April the Government will have allocated a total of £25 billion solely on business grants in the £352 billion total package. To put that in context, that is about two or three times greater than the NHS budget for a normal year.
The Government continue to work closely with local authorities to make sure that grant funding can get to the businesses that need it as soon as is practicable, but, as my right hon. Friend said, there are clearly businesses that we need to continue to work with to see what can be done to support them, because we want to ensure that every business, no matter what area they are trading or working in, that has the reach of language schools and the soft power that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) talked about, can continue to flourish, and indeed attract new businesses to open within that space. I pay tribute to local authority staff, who have been working hard over the course of the pandemic to get these schemes in place and money out to businesses, under extreme pressure of illness to themselves, as well as covering the additional work that local authorities have had to take up.
However, the business grants programme forms only part of the massive support package put in place throughout the course of the pandemic. Since March 2020, in addition to £20 billion in grants, we have provided £10 billion in business rates holidays and £73 billion in loans and guarantees, supporting every sector of the economy.
I recognise the long-standing support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West for the English language schools sector. I forget how many days ago it was, but as he noted he first raised this issue in his maiden speech, in an Adjournment debate, unusually in this place. There are many such businesses in his constituency and he is doing exactly what a constituency MP should do: standing up for businesses in his constituency and the people who benefit from them. My right hon. Friend mentioned that the sketch writer Quentin Letts described me as a “second-string punch-bag”, and it occurs to me that people can only start to pick up such idioms by coming to language schools in this country, otherwise they might be sitting scratching their heads while reading the international press.
Throughout this pandemic we have taken difficult decisions on whether and when to require some businesses to close by law, and they were not taken lightly. We recognise that many businesses have made huge sacrifices in recent months. Where closures have been required, they have been in business units where significant numbers of people are likely to come into contact: retail, hospitality, leisure, personal care, hotels and some others. But, as my right hon. Friend noted, English language schools were not mandated to close in the regulations, as it was believed that these types of businesses, along with other education providers, could access online markets, but he has eloquently outlined their ongoing situation and the pressures they face. Only those businesses that were mandated to close in the regulations were eligible for mandatory scheme support such as the local restrictions support grant (closed) and variations thereof, which includes the scheme that covered the national lockdown period from 5 January onwards.
The restart grant scheme, which launched on 1 April this year and goes hand in hand with the Prime Minister’s road map, supports businesses in the non-essential retail, hospitality, accommodation, leisure, personal care and gym sectors, to enable them to reopen to customers and get those sectors back to as close to normal as possible. Unfortunately, English language schools again find themselves not eligible, as they do not meet the sector definitions set out for the restart grant scheme.
However, a number of business sectors—English language schools among them—have clearly been severely affected by the restrictions, even though they have not been required to close; some home-based businesses and businesses outside the business rates system find themselves in the same position. That is why we have made substantial grant support available for local authorities to develop local discretionary schemes—that is, the additional restrictions grant.
Under the scheme, more than £2 billion has been allocated to local authorities since November 2020. Local authorities have the discretion to use the funding to support businesses as they see fit. The scheme is open to all businesses from all sectors that were severely impacted by restrictions, including English language schools. Crucially, it is for local authorities, which know their local economies better than we in central Government do, to make sure that the discretionary support that they put in place is proportionate and tailored to the local circumstances.
I am personally speaking to local authorities to press them to get funding out of the door as quickly as is practicable. The Chancellor gave an extra £425 million in additional restrictions grant money to local authorities, but only if they had used up their original allocation. I call on local authorities to use that extra allocation either to give more money to the businesses covered by their local policies or, as my right hon. Friend is rightly asking for, to look into expanding their local policies to encompass businesses that continue to fall between the cracks.
I hope that the sector is also making use of the remainder of the Government business support offer, including the job support scheme, which my right hon.  Friend the Chancellor has confirmed will run until June 2021, and the various loan and finance-guarantee schemes that have been in place throughout the pandemic. The position for English language schools is that although they have not been required by law to close, their trade has been affected by the restrictions. I encourage the sector to explore, with the relevant local authorities, whether English language schools are eligible for a covid-19 business grant from the additional restriction grant scheme, at the local authorities’ discretion.
As my right hon. Friend will be aware, the Chancellor announced at the Budget the continuation of several business-support measures to provide a platform as the economy reopens. I am hopeful that, taken in the round, the package of support that we have put in place for businesses—the grants, loans, furloughs and others measures—is substantial and offers support both for those businesses required to close and those that have been open but have had their trade affected.
I know that my right hon. Friend will continue to be a strong advocate for the sector and look forward to continuing this conversation. I am happy to take him up on his offer to meet to converse and see what more we can do to support businesses—not just English language schools but other businesses, too—in his constituency with not only reopening but recovery and beyond. I am grateful to him for bringing this matter to the House and being such a strong champion for the sector and for the businesses in his constituency.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

  

  Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Con)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
  Mr Alistair Carmichael


  Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
  Mr Alistair Carmichael


  Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
  Mr Alistair Carmichael


  Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
  Ben Everitt


  Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
  Ben Lake


  Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
  Mr Alistair Carmichael


  Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
  Mr Alistair Carmichael


  Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
  Ben Lake


  Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
  Mr Alistair Carmichael


  Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Howell (Henley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
  Mr Alistair Carmichael


  Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
  Mr William Wragg


  Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West)
  Owen Thompson


  Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
  Mr Alistair Carmichael


  Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
  Mr Alistair Carmichael


  Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
  Antony Higginbotham


  Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
  Mark Harper


  Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
  Mr Alistair Carmichael


  Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
  Mr William Wragg


  Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
  Mr Alistair Carmichael


  Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore